Speedy Antitrust Approval

DOJ’s announcement of the settlement agreement is noteworthy because of the speed at which Disney was able to negotiate a remedy to a combination that raised a number of antitrust issues.  Though the parties received second requests on March 5, 2018, and Disney had only recently entered into a new agreement with 21CF on June 20, 2018, the DOJ and Disney were able to negotiate a divestiture worth approximately $20-23 billion within 6 months of review and 4 months after issuing information requests.  The dollar value of the Disney/21CF divestiture will likely double what the DOJ characterized as the largest divestiture in history in Bayer/Monsanto.

Disney was in a hurry to obtain antitrust approval because it is involved in bidding war with Comcast for the 21CF assets.  Indeed, Disney upped its offer on June 20^th because Comcast had started a bidding war for the 21CF assets on June 13^th.  Comcast has its own antitrust issues with its acquisition, but it was hoping to be on a level playing field with Disney in terms of the antitrust reviews at the DOJ. Indeed, Comcast said as much when it made its bid as it indicated that it had already provided documents and information to the DOJ in response to its civil investigative demand regarding the acquisition of 21CF assets.

Comcast was banking on the DOJ conducting a long drawn out second request investigation for Disney’s deal.  But, rather than conducting a lengthy review of the Disney/21CF deal, the DOJ entered into a quick settlement agreement.  This was surprising because the Disney/21CF deal raised a number of horizontal and vertical issues including increasing the size of its motion picture business, content library and cable programming, which would increase its bargaining leverage in negotiations with movie theatres and TV programmers on licensing fees, Multichannel programing distributors (MVPDs) and virtual MVPDs over affiliate fees for its channels, and video streaming services over licensing fees.  Moreover, Disney is taking control of Hulu and launching a number of subscription streaming businesses with the intent on foreclosing its content from rivals such as Netflix.  It could be that none of these issues amount to actual antitrust problems, but certainly they warrant some investigation.

Despite all of these other issues, the DOJ quickly focused on the overlap in cable sports programming.  The DOJ said in its Press Release that “to streamline agency clearance, Disney agreed to divest the 22 RSNs rather than continue with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing merger investigation.”  Anyone who has visited Disney World knows the value of fast passes.  Disney understands the value of time so it used a cooperative approach to get the greenlight for what appears to be the largest divestiture in history without an upfront buyer in record time.

Understanding that the DOJ’s major concern was the overlap in cable sports programming, Disney decided not to challenge that contention or negotiate a lesser divestiture, which would have lengthened the second request investigation many more months.  Disney likely could have argued that ESPN channels and local RSNs really do not compete head to head at all.  ESPN has market power as do the local RSNs to obtain increases in affiliate fees already.  Moreover, watching ESPN is no substitute for watching your home town team on the local RSN.  Disney, however, gave up on those arguments and agreed to a hefty structural remedy that took the issue off the table.

Makan Delrahim’s Editorial in the Washington Times Defending DOJ’s Fast Review

On July 12, 2018, Makan Delrahim wrote an editorial defending the speed in which Disney was able to negotiate a divestiture with the DOJ.  He noted that the divestiture agreement was a “victory for American consumers and should be heralded as an example of merger parties working effectively with Division investigators to resolve antitrust concerns.”  Delrahim noted that “each merger poses unique facts requiring unique market analysis.” He correctly stated that the pace of any review is largely in the hands of the merging parties, who control the timing of their Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) filings, as well as the pace and timing of compliance with the Division’s information requests.” He added that “parties can accelerate the review by pointing the Division to relevant information early in the investigation, promptly scheduling interviews, and remaining open to timely divestitures that resolve antitrust concerns.”

Competition Concern

The DOJ alleged that without the divestiture the acquisition would likely result in higher prices for cable sports programming licensed to MVPDs in each of the local markets that the RSNs serve.  As the DOJ explained, Disney (ESPN properties) and 21CF’s (RSNs) cable sports programming competed head to head.  The DOJ alleged that the ESPN properties and the 21CF’s RSNs compete to sell cable sports programming to MVPDs in various local markets across the United States.  Because of this competition, the complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would likely result in MVPDs paying higher prices for cable sports programming in those local markets.

No Allegation of “Must Have” Programming

Interestingly, the DOJ did not allege that Disney or 21CF had “must have” programming.  Arguably, ESPN channels and RSNs would be considered “must have” programming for MVPDs and VMVPDs.  It could be that given Judge Leon’s Opinion in AT&T/Time Warner that the DOJ has given up on being able to prove that certain programming is “must have”.

No Upfront Buyer

Another interesting point is that the DOJ did not require an upfront buyer.  There could be good reasons for why no upfront buyer was necessary. Upfront buyers are usually required when the DOJ is not sure that any appropriate buyers exist or if all of the assets need to be divested to one buyer.  Here, there are numerous buyers and the DOJ decided that the RSNs can be sold to multiple buyers not to a single buyer.  In that scenario, Comcast could be a buyer for some RSNs located in geographic areas where it is not the incumbent cable provider; AT&T and Charter have very little in the RSN space and may want to buy other properties to gain a larger footprint; Discovery has international sports rights so they may be interested in some RSNs; Liberty Media has owned RSNs in the past; Youtube, Facebook, and Amazon may want to dip their toes into the RSN space; and Sinclair, which has a strong local presence in many markets and currently owns the Tennis Channel could be interested in some of the RSNs.

Lessons Learned

The DOJ’s quick settlement demonstrates that the DOJ is willing to streamline investigations if merging parties propose substantial structural fixes upfront.  The settlement and Mr. Delrahim’s editorial reminds merging parties that they control the timing and length of merger investigations.  Merging parties control how fast they file their HSR submissions and when they comply with the DOJ’s second requests.  Some merging parties take their time to comply, hold back submission of documents and information and delay offering any real significant divestitures until exhausting all of their economic arguments.  While the government gets a lot of blame for long antitrust reviews, merging parties are always in control of the timing.  This settlement agreement also demonstrates that the DOJ is willing to work with merging parties that are willing to cooperate in negotiating  a complete solution to a competition concern.  Consistent with its recent enforcement action in Bayer/Monsanto, the DOJ is willing to approve deals with significant divestitures.  Here, the divestitures are worth approximately $20-23 billion—more than double the size of the Bayer divestiture.  Finally, the settlement shows that the DOJ is willing to approve settlements without upfront buyers in situations where multiple buyers can acquire the divested assets, a single buyer is not necessary, and a number of potential buyers exist.

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com

On November 2, 2016, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division filed suit alleging that DirecTV was the ringleader of a series of unlawful information exchanges between DirecTV and three of its competitors – namely, Cox Communications Inc. (“Cox”), Charter Communications Inc. (“Charter”) and AT&T (before it acquired DirecTV) – during the companies’ negotiations to carry the SportsNet LA “Dodgers Channel.”

SportsNet LA holds the exclusive rights to telecast almost all live Dodgers games in the Los Angeles area.  According to the complaint, DirecTV’s Chief Content Officer, Daniel York, unlawfully exchanged competitively-sensitive information with his counter-parts at Cox, Charter and AT&T while they were each negotiating with SportsNet LA for the right to telecast the Dodgers Channel.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that DirecTV and each of these competitors agreed to and exchanged non-public information about their companies’ ongoing negotiations to telecast the Dodgers Channel, as well as their companies’ future plans to carry – or not carry – the channel. The complaint also alleges that the companies engaged in this conduct in order to unlawfully obtain bargaining leverage and to reduce the risk that they would lose subscribers if they decided not to carry the channel but a competitor chose to do so. The complaint further alleges that the information learned through these unlawful agreements was a material factor in the companies’ decisions not to carry the Dodgers Channel. The Dodgers Channel is still not carried by DirecTV, Cox or AT&T. The DOJ allegations make out a buyer conspiracy case that violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The DOJ further claims that the illegal information sharing corrupted the competitive bargaining process and likely contributed to the lengthy blackout.

The settlement is designed to ensure that when DirecTV and AT&T negotiate with providers of video programming, including negotiations to telecast the Dodgers Channel, they will not illegally share competitively-sensitive information with their rivals. The settlement also requires the companies to monitor certain communications their programming executives have with their rivals, and to implement antitrust training and compliance programs.

Lesson Learned:

The DOJ’s settlement demonstrates its resolve to prevent pay-television providers and specifically AT&T and DirecTV from engaging in illegal conduct that thwarts the competitive process. Moreover, the enforcement action indicates that the DOJ will take information that it learns regarding illegal activity through its antitrust review of a merger and pursue it.  So, the lesson is that the DOJ will bring civil and/or criminal actions against illegal conduct discovered during merger reviews.  Executives should understand that texting and emailing competitors to share competitively and strategically sensitive information to avoid competing is illegal.  While most of us would agree that the Dodgers may be holding out for too much money, the pay tv providers cannot engage in illegal conduct that thwarts the competitive process.  Fortunately, for DirecTV, the DOJ did not bring a criminal case rather it treated the conduct as a civil matter.  But, executives should be mindful that this type of conduct could potentially result in criminal as well as civil penalties.

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com

On April 25, 2016, the DOJ submitted a proposed final judgment allowing the creation of New Charter as long as the parties agreed to certain behavioral conditions. The DOJ required conditions to resolve its concern that New Charter would have a greater incentive and ability to impose contractual restrictions on video programmers (producers of TV shows and video content), thereby limiting their ability to distribute their content through online video distributors (“OVDs”), such as Netflix, Amazon or Hulu.  [1]  See Complaint.

New Charter became the second largest cable company and third largest multichannel video programming distributor. MVPDs include cable companies such as Comcast, TWC and Charter, but also direct broadcast satellite providers (i.e., DirectTV and Dish Network) and telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon. Prior to the merger, however, TWC already had substantial power over programmers’ content. The company used this power to influence programmers’ behavior towards its smaller OVD rivals. TWC was the most aggressive cable company or MVPD in terms of obtaining alternative distribution means (“ADM”) clauses in its contracts with programmers that prohibited or greatly restricted programmers from distributing their content to OVDs or through online distribution. Indeed, the DOJ specifically alleged that “[n]o [cable company] has sought and obtained these restrictive ADMs as frequently, or as successfully, as TWC.”  [2]  Complaint at 3.

Acknowledging that no horizontal overlap existed between the merging parties, the DOJ noted that “the Clayton Act is concerned with mergers that threaten to reduce the number of quality choices available to consumers by increasing the merging parties’ incentive or ability to engage in conduct that would foreclose competition.”[3]  Competitive Impact Statement.  Accordingly, the DOJ sought comprehensive relief to ensure that New Charter will not have the ability to foreclose OVD competition and deny customers the benefit of innovation and new services through ADM clauses and other restrictive contracting provisions.

Similarities Between the Charter/TWC and the ABI/SABMiller Mergers

There are many parallels between the Charter/TWC and the ABI/SABMiller transactions. Both deals involve multiple tiers between the producers and the customers.[4] Both transactions involve dominant firms that already have the ability and incentive to pressure companies in other tiers to enter into contracts that have the effect of restricting rivals’ access to consumers, and as a result of the merger, the newly formed mega company would have greater incentive and ability to impose restrictions and/or incentives that could raise entry barriers or foreclose its smaller rivals.

What rings true in Charter/TWC similarly rings true in ABI/SABMiller. For example, in the Charter/TWC complaint, the DOJ expressed concern that:

In the beer industry, it is the emergence of import, craft and small independent brewers that is providing important competition in both product diversity and pricing. For smaller brewers and importers to successfully compete with ABI, they need access to distributors, and ultimately retailers, in order to sell their products to consumers. Large brewers like ABI already enter into agreements that discourage distributors from selling rival beer and prevent retailers from offering adequate or prime shelving space to craft and independent brewers as well as importers.

While the current MillerCoors JV has allowed for open and independent distribution, there is reason to believe that ABI’s proposed divestiture of SABMiller’s share of the JV to Molson Coors to purportedly retain the current levels of competition in the United States, will actually result in New MillerCoors becoming more like ABI. Indeed, the present MillerCoors JV is not a true merger; it is an agreement of limited duration. Currently, MillerCoors is not fully incentivized to maximize its brand portfolio because capital invested in any brand would only benefit its true owner if the JV were to ever be terminated by the parties. Because it is not a full merger, there has not been any realistic incentive for the JV to pursue tactics like ABI’s share of mind incentive program.

Post-transaction, however, New MillerCoors will be a completed merger as Molson Coors will take over 100 percent ownership. New MillerCoors will have integrated management and the incentive and ability to pursue stronger agreements and incentive programs that restrict craft and independent brewers’, as well as importers’, access to distributors and retailers. To the extent that both a merged ABI/SABMiller and New MillerCoors pursue the same strategy, their effectiveness in eliminating craft will increase and distributors will eventually find it financially unattractive for distributors to carry craft brands as distributors are strong-armed into participation in incentive programs or given other carrot or stick threats such as ownership transfer approvals to compel compliance. Moreover, craft brewers will not be able to find or join rival distributors of scale which is critical for volume gains in all retail accounts.[6]

Thus, the competitive concerns in the ABI/SABMiller and MillerCoors transactions effectively mirror the concerns in Charter/TWC: “[t]o the extent a transaction, such as the one at issue here, enhances [a brewer’s] ability or incentive to restrain [craft and independent brewers’] access to [distributors and retailers], and thus to prevent [craft and independent brewers] from becoming a meaningful new competitive option, consumers lose.”[7]

The New Charter Remedies

The conditions that the DOJ negotiated with New Charter are entirely behavioral in nature and serve as a good example of remedies that would be beneficial in resolving the wide-ranging competitive concerns raised by the ABI/SABMiller merger.[8]  Proposed Final Judgment.  The remedies restrict New Charter’s post-merger conduct in the following ways:

• New Charter is prohibited from entering into or enforcing agreements with programmers that limit, or forbid, OVDs’ access to video content.

• New Charter is prohibited from entering into agreements that create incentives for video programmers to limit access of programming to OVDs.

• New Charter is prohibited from discriminating against, retaliating against, or punishing any video programmer for providing its content to any video distributor.

• New Charter is prohibited from entering into or enforcing agreements with programmers that make it financially unattractive for programmers to license their content to OVDs.

• New Charter is prohibited from entering into or enforcing unconditional most favored nation provisions against a programmer for licensing their content to OVDs.

In sum, the conditions contain broad prohibitions on restrictive contracting practices to ensure that New Charter will not replace ADMs with other contracting practices that would increase barriers for OVDs or otherwise make OVDs less competitive. Indeed, the prohibitions were put in place because the DOJ was concerned that New Charter could enter into certain contracts that are designed to circumvent the order, create incentives to limit distribution to OVDs, or create economic disadvantages for a programmer to license content to an OVD.

The New Charter Remedies Are Not Industry Specific

The behavioral remedies used to resolve the vertical foreclosure concerns raised by the creation of New Charter are applicable to any industry with a multi-tier supply chain and dominant firms that already exert power over other tiers of the supply chain. The DOJ’s goal in New Charter is to prevent the merged firm from raising barriers to entry for smaller horizontal rivals or otherwise make smaller horizontal rivals less competitive. The DOJ is concerned about a merged firm’s increased incentive and ability to protect its market power by denying or raising the costs of an input to its rivals. In other words, the DOJ is concerned about transactions that substantially enhance the merged firm’s ability and incentive to foreclose competition through restrictive contracting provisions or incentive programs that make it economically unattractive to work with the merged firm’s rivals. The New Charter conditions are aimed at protecting competition and consumer choice.

Like TWC, ABI has been squeezing its smaller rivals. Unlike TWC, ABI is a much more dominant firm within its industry. ABI influences the distribution tier through direct ownership or limiting distributors’ ability to carry competitors’ products through its “share of mind” incentive program. ABI’s incentive program discourages distributors from carrying rival beers if they want to be eligible for substantial financial rewards. Post-merger, ABI’s increased global scale and New MillerCoors’ full portfolio of brands will substantially enhance their ability and incentive to obtain provisions in their contracts or promotional agreements that restrict or limit the ability of distributors from distributing their smaller rivals’ products, foreclosing these smaller rivals from effectively competing. While there is nothing illegal about ABI using incentive programs that focus on increased sales of its beer, the DOJ needs to make sure that ABI’s contracts with distributors do not contain terms that create economic disadvantages for them carrying smaller brewers’ beers. The DOJ must be mindful that no beer producer has sought and obtained these incentive programs as frequently, or as successfully, as ABI.

The New Charter remedies line up very well with what the DOJ should do in the proposed ABI/SABMiller transaction. Comparable remedies in the proposed ABI merger would: (1) prohibit or limit ABI’s and New MillerCoors’ ability to use distributor incentive programs or MFN-type agreements with ABI or MillerCoors aligned distributors that create economic disadvantages or make it financially unattractive for them to distribute independent brewers’ beer; (2) prohibit ABI from retaliating or discriminating against distributors for distributing other brewers’ beers; and (3) prohibit ABI and New MillerCoors from engaging in other conduct that would foreclose other independent brewers’ ability to distribute their products to retailers.

Such conditions would not be overly restrictive. ABI and New MillerCoors should be allowed to incentivize their distributors to increase sales of their products. But, as the DOJ addressed in the case of New Charter, they should not be allowed to engage in promotional programs that are designed to make it unattractive for distributors to carry rival products.

Approving a merger is risky business and the DOJ is increasingly aware that it needs to be as thorough as possible to prevent post-merger mischief. The approach in Charter/TWC is sound, and DOJ should take a similar one with respect to ABI/SABMiller.

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com

[1] See, Complaint, U.S. v. Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 16-0795 (D.D.C. 2016).

[2] Id. at 3.

[3] See Competitive Impact Statement, U.S. v. Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 16-0795 (D.D.C. 2016). “For example, a merger may create, or substantially enhance, the ability or incentive of the merged firm to protect its market power by denying or raising the price of an input to the firm’s rival.” Id.

[4] It does not matter that the Charter/TWC and the ABI/SABMiller merger concerns involve different tiers or that the power flows in different directions. What matters is that the effects are the same – both mergers involve using power over a different tier of the supply chain in order to disadvantage horizontal rivals.

[5] Complaint, supra note 1 at 3 (emphasis added).

[6] Most local markets are primarily, if not exclusively, served by an ABI aligned distributor and/or a MillerCoors aligned distributor as the only distributors of sufficient scale and scope to service all retail accounts on a daily basis.

[7] Mirroring the language in the Complaint at footnote 5.

[8] See, proposed final judgment, available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/846051/download. The behavioral remedies are outlined on pages 5-7.

DOJ’s Vertical Concerns Related to the Creation of New Charter

New Charter became the second largest cable company and third largest Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (“MVPD”).  MVPDs include cable companies such as Comcast, TWC and Charter, but also direct broadcast satellite providers (i.e., DirectTV and Dish Network) and telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon.

According to the DOJ, prior to the merger, TWC, the second largest cable company and fourth largest MVPD, already had substantial power over programmers’ content.  The DOJ alleged that TWC used this power to influence programmers’ behavior towards its smaller online video distributors (“OVD”) rivals such as Hulu, Netflix and Amazon.  The DOJ further alleged that TWC was the most aggressive cable company or MVPD in terms of obtaining Alternative Distribution Means (“ADM”) clauses in its contracts with programmers that prohibited or greatly restricted programmers from distributing their content to OVDs or through online distribution.  Indeed, the DOJ specifically alleged in its Complaint that “[n]o [cable company] has sought and obtained these restrictive ADMs as frequently, or as successfully, as TWC.”

In the Complaint, the DOJ expressed the following concern:

In order for an OVD [Netflix] to successfully compete with the traditional [cable companies], it needs both the ability to reach consumers over the Internet and the ability to obtain programming from content providers that consumers will want to watch. Importantly, incumbent cable companies often can exert significant influence over one or both of these essential ingredients to an OVD’s success, because they provide broadband connectivity that OVDs need to reach consumers and are also a critical distribution channel for the same video programmers that supply OVDs with video content.  To the extent a transaction, such as the one at issue here, enhances an MVPD’s ability or incentive to restrain OVDs’ access to either of these critical inputs, and thus to prevent OVDs from becoming a meaningful new competitive option, consumers lose.

Acknowledging that no horizontal overlap existed between the merging parties in any local market, the DOJ noted in its Competitive Impact Statement that “the Clayton Act is concerned with mergers that threaten to reduce the number of quality choices available to consumers by increasing the merging parties’ incentive or ability to engage in conduct that would foreclose competition.”  Accordingly, the DOJ sought comprehensive behavioral relief to ensure that New Charter will not have the ability to foreclose OVD competition and deny customers the benefit of innovation and new services through ADM clauses and other restrictive contracting provisions.

Indeed, the DOJ required conditions to resolve its vertical foreclosure concern that New Charter would have a greater incentive and ability to impose contractual restrictions on video programmers (producers of TV shows and video content), thereby limiting their ability to distribute their content through OVDs.

The New Charter Remedies

The conditions that the DOJ negotiated with New Charter are entirely behavioral in nature.  The remedies restrict New Charter’s post-merger conduct in the following ways:

1. New Charter is prohibited from entering into or enforcing agreements with programmers that limit, or forbid, OVDs’ access to video content.
2. New Charter is prohibited from entering into agreements that create incentives for video programmers to limit access of programming to OVDs.
3. New Charter is prohibited from discriminating against, retaliating against, or punishing any video programmer for providing its content to any video distributor.
4. New Charter is prohibited from entering into or enforcing agreements with programmers that make it financially unattractive for programmers to license their content to OVDs.  In other words, New Charter is not permitted to enter or enforce an agreement whereby the programmer is obligated to provide New Charter with a massive discount if the programmer provides content to an OVD.
5. New Charter is prohibited from entering into or enforcing unconditional most favored nation provisions (“MFNs”) against a programmer for licensing their content to OVDs.

In sum, the conditions contain broad prohibitions on restrictive contracting practices to ensure that New Charter will not replace ADMs with other contracting practices that would increase barriers for OVDs or otherwise make OVDs less competitive.  Indeed, the prohibitions were put in place because the DOJ was concerned that New Charter could enter into certain contracts that are designed to circumvent the Order, create incentives to limit distribution to OVDs, or create economic disadvantages for a programmer to license content to an OVD.

Lessons Learned

While the DOJ normally prefers structural remedies when approving a merger that raises only horizontal concerns, the DOJ’s negotiated consent decree with Charter illustrates the DOJ’s willingness to impose behavioral conditions on mergers that raise vertical foreclosure concerns.  Despite no geographic overlap in any local market, the DOJ required comprehensive behavioral conditions to prevent New Charter from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct against its smaller rivals.  The behavioral remedies used to resolve the vertical foreclosure concerns raised by the creation of New Charter are applicable to any industry with a multi-tier supply chain and dominant firms that already exert power over other tiers of the supply chain.  The DOJ’s goal in New Charter is to prevent the merged firm from raising barriers to entry for smaller horizontal rivals or otherwise make smaller horizontal rivals less competitive.  The DOJ is concerned when a merger enhances the merged firm’s incentive and ability to protect its market power by denying or raising the costs of an input to its rivals.  In other words, the DOJ is concerned about transactions that substantially enhance the merged firm’s ability and incentive to foreclose competition through restrictive contracting provisions or incentive programs that make it economically unattractive to work with the merged firm’s rivals.  The DOJ’s behavioral conditions are aimed at protecting competition and consumer choice.

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com