Why the DOJ Has a Daunting Battle Ahead in the AT&T Case

The transcript discusses the DOJ's challenge in proving that a merger involving Randall Stephenson is harmful to consumers. It highlights the outdated legal framework the DOJ relies on and the skepticism courts may have. The conversation also touches on the nature of vertical mergers and the lack of historical evidence for exclusionary conduct. The DOJ's task of predicting future anticompetitive behavior is deemed difficult, especially given the changes in competition since the Comcast-NBC merger. The discussion concludes with the idea that the DOJ's view may be too narrow, not accounting for future market dynamics.

What is the main challenge the DOJ faces in its case against AT&T?

• Proving political motivations

• Establishing market dominance

• Demonstrating consumer harm

• Showing financial losses

Why might courts be skeptical about the DOJ's reliance on old laws?

• The laws are too recent

• The laws are not applicable to mergers

• The laws are over half a century old

• The laws have been repealed

What is a vertical merger?

• A merger between two competitors

• A merger between a supplier and a distributor

• A merger between two companies in different countries

• A merger between two unrelated companies

What historical evidence is lacking in the DOJ's case?

• Evidence of consumer benefits

• Evidence of exclusionary conduct

• Evidence of financial growth

• Evidence of political influence

How has competition changed since the Comcast-NBC merger?

• There are more avenues for programmers

• There are fewer avenues for programmers

• Competition has remained the same

• Competition has decreased