This week was not a bad week for Microsoft. Not only did the UK Competition and Markets Authority decide that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Xbox maker taking ownership of Call of Duty (opens in new tab), but now GamesRadar is reporting that, at the terrible hands of a California judge, Microsoft's Activision Blizzard's reported that the so-called "gamers' lawsuit" against the acquisition has been dismissed.

The "Gamers Lawsuit" was filed against Microsoft last December by a group of 10 "Call of Duty" fans (open in new tab). As alleged by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (open in new tab), they claimed that Activision is "one of only a few independent game publishers in the world capable of making video games that make extensive use of the highest quality graphics," and that the consolidation of these companies would necessarily players,

and stated that the consolidation of these companies would surely have a negative impact on video game players.

They also claimed that Microsoft lied before acquiring Bethesda (open in new tab) in 2021, claiming that it had no incentive to restrict the use of Bethesda's games, suggesting that similar promises made about Activision Blizzard's games would be detrimental. While I agree that the term "gamers' lawsuit" has the effect of throwing a bucket of cold water on a cat, I don't think either claim is entirely unreasonable.

Perhaps that is why I am not a judge. In court documents shared by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents on March 20 (opens in new tab), Judge Jacqueline Corley wrote, "The Complaint alleges that the merger will have an anti . does not plausibly allege a reasonable likelihood that the merger will have an anticompetitive effect in the relevant market," and granted Microsoft's motion to dismiss the action forthwith.

Specifically, the judge stated that plaintiffs' allegations that the merger could have anticompetitive effects were insufficient on their own, that they failed to detail "why" and "how" such effects could occur, and that they failed to "allege facts to support their conclusory incentive claim." (Id.). In other words, the judge found that the plaintiffs had made several exaggerated claims without any factual support.

"Is there any possibility that Microsoft will have full or partial exclusivity over Activision's game catalog? Yes. Did Plaintiff allege facts that would make it reasonably likely that Microsoft would do so?

In conclusion, Judge Cawley declared that the plaintiffs' arguments were "unpersuasive" and threw them all out. However, there are still 20 days (from March 20) to go. The likelihood that this merger will be halted is becoming less and less likely with each passing week, but it is probably not the gamers who will prevent it from happening.