There has been a final decision rendered by a regulator thus far that has disagreed with Microsoft and Activision's views on the deal? Last I checked, all final decisions thus far have been in Microsoft's favor. Or are you going off of speculation and anonymous reports about what regulators may or may not do?
We've heard only what they're investigating and what their concerns are based on the evidence provided to them.
CMA literally went out of its way with its latest update to stress to everyone that what they're publishing is designed to assist public understanding of the issues and that people should not interpret whatever evidence that is published on their pages as an indication that the CMA endorses the views of any party or accepts the evidence provided. The below section on Evidence is the last official word thus far from CMA on this deal. Ask yourself why did they feel the need to caution people that they haven't endorsed any of the views expressed yet, and haven't accepted anybody's evidence as fact yet? Either side can twist it in their favor, but I think it's a clear sign they're concerned about the view they're "protecting" Sony as the market leader.
They're putting this all out for transparency reasons. We have no idea what the EU, FTC, or CMA truly believes yet. We only have a road map of the CMA's and EU's concerns. If any major regulator had truly reached a final decision on this deal at all detrimental to approval, we would already know.
Even their phase 1 decision makes clear that phase 1 has a lower threshold than phase 2, and that they would be using the determinations based on evidence from phase 1 as the starting point for what parties submit in phase 2, which regardless of a specific party not changing their view (hardly ever happens - whoever wants to kill it, will still want to kill it - whoever wants it to be approved, will still want it approved) will have a much higher bar to meet in order to stop the deal. It doesn't mean they have made a final determination of the evidence they reviewed, only that it's the starting point for any concerns they may have, and it's up to the relevant parties -- particularly Microsoft and Activision -- to address them.
Realistic Prospect does not mean likely. Realistic prospect can be established simply based on an accusation with zero definitive evidence fully vetting the claim at the highest possible standards. The standard is simply the far easier to prove prima facie standard. Prima Facie is also used in immigration-related cases, such as when a woman must provide enough evidence that she could realistically be a victim of abuse by a US Citizen husband. Expect in the case of that particular immigration related case, the victim does not have the abuser countering their claim. The regulatory process gives more power to relevant parties and especially competitors to challenge a quick and easy approval. This deal was never going to get a quick and easy approval anywhere outside of Saudi Arabia.
In phase 2 the federal government would require more concrete evidence of what was alleged in Phase 1. Regulators may or may not agree with Sony's view (I highly doubt it), but phase 1 is accomplished simply by a single affected party relevant to the industry crying foul and providing just enough documentation evidence to suggest the possibility they're telling the truth is real. People are misinterpreting this deal going to deeper investigations as somehow a sign that it's in trouble. And that's where everybody has messed up. There has been one concluded phase 2 investigation to date, the one in Brazil, and it ended in final decision that approved the deal with zero restrictions. I don't expect that in all territories, but I do expect Microsoft to more or less get to do as they please with Activision when all is said and done. No, they never intended to remove COD from Playstation.
