Are you talking about economic terms or how it affects what consumers consume? Because with the global new economy consumers consume services and products "remotely" and the location of a company is becoming less relevant.
Foreign Comptition Agencies Must Play by the Rules
International competition regulators must play by the rules they've agreed to.www.uschamber.com
...
On appeal, the Competition Appeal Tribunal found that the CMA had violated Meta’s procedural rights. The CMA improperly redacted material and failed to disclose that Meta’s competitor, Snap, had turned down a chance to buy GIPHY and considered its ad business worthless. In other words, Facebook’s competitor saw no competitive problems with Facebook’s acquisition, a pertinent fact that the CMA should have disclosed. Nevertheless, Meta ultimately abandoned the deal after the CMA issued a final decision against the company.
Of course, the process failures beg the question of whether foreign regulators should review purely American mergers at all. Facebook’s transaction involved American companies, employees, and shareholders, with an established American legal framework to address any competitive concerns. GIPHY earned no revenue in the U.K and had no physical presence or employees there. This is a growing problem as the European Commission has intervened in Illumina’s proposed purchase of Grail, a biotech company, even though Grail had no activities in Europe. In this case, it appears that the Europe collaborated with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in ways that denied the companies their day in court.
...
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
I am not talking anything. That is a snippet of the article.
The article seems to take it a bit "nationalistic" and doesnt understand the reason why regulators make decisions regardless which country benefits economically.
edit: actually they do, but the US Chamber of Commerce is less interested about consumer consumption or possible foreign barriers of entry. They are more concerned about the economic benefits of the country and doesnt like foreign regulators being involved in their own "affairs" regardless how those affairs are exported in other economies
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
So the CMA made the right decision but didn't initially disclose some pertinent facts. The appeal acknowledged that and those factors were disclosed but the decision didn't change. This is why there is an fundamental administrate process to challenge all UK Government decisions. Even when the decision doesn't change, under further scrutiny it may allow the release of more information.
The United States has more extraterritorial legislation impacting other sovereign nations than all other countries combined. People in glass houses... If you want to read some truly overreaching legislation impacting all countries which trade the US, read up on the Foreign Direct Product Rule. The US has just leveraged this aggressively against China.
Wow that was really fucked up.Foreign Comptition Agencies Must Play by the Rules
International competition regulators must play by the rules they've agreed to.
...
On appeal, the Competition Appeal Tribunal found that the CMA had violated Meta’s procedural rights. The CMA improperly redacted material and failed to disclose that Meta’s competitor, Snap, had turned down a chance to buy GIPHY and considered its ad business worthless. In other words, Facebook’s competitor saw no competitive problems with Facebook’s acquisition, a pertinent fact that the CMA should have disclosed. Nevertheless, Meta ultimately abandoned the deal after the CMA issued a final decision against the company.
Of course, the process failures beg the question of whether foreign regulators should review purely American mergers at all. Facebook’s transaction involved American companies, employees, and shareholders, with an established American legal framework to address any competitive concerns. GIPHY earned no revenue in the U.K and had no physical presence or employees there. This is a growing problem as the European Commission has intervened in Illumina’s proposed purchase of Grail, a biotech company, even though Grail had no activities in Europe. In this case, it appears that the Europe collaborated with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in ways that denied the companies their day in court.
...
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You're not wrong, WTF is "Comptition" ?
@SmooTh it's worth clarifying that almost all CMA cases are open for anybody impacted to comment, including the public. There is generally a published email address (as is the case here) for comments to be submitted. The invite for any comments has been open since last Friday.
a typo since its spelt right in the article and the headline found there
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Is that the article that concludes that the UK CMA make the correct decision? That article, right?
Must have read different articles
"On appeal, the Competition Appeal Tribunal found that the CMA had violated Meta’s procedural rights. The CMA improperly redacted material and failed to disclose that Meta’s competitor, Snap, had turned down a chance to buy GIPHY and considered its ad business worthless. In other words, Facebook’s competitor saw no competitive problems with Facebook’s acquisition, a pertinent fact that the CMA should have disclosed. Nevertheless, Meta ultimately abandoned the deal after the CMA issued a final decision against the company."
Seems like the CMA infringed on Meta's rights
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I've bolded the relevant portion. It was the process, not the decision, that was found lacking. That oversight was addressed during the appeal. Had there been a failure of the assessment, regardless of Facebook's intentions, that would have been addressed. That is how UK (and EU) processes work. If an error is identified, it is disclosed and rectified - not dismissed or buried.
The problem is with the CMA with holding relevant information to reach a conclusion. The CMA's conclusion is wrong because as it turns out the competition felt it wasn't worth the price.
CMA with held information to reach their conclusion and give it weight. Without giving facebook the chance to use that information.
Seems to me that the CMA itself needs to be investigated.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
By the Competition Appeal Tribunal perhaps? As in the body that oversees dispute CMA decisions? As it did here?
which found that the CMA did violate Meta's rights. What is the resulting change to prevent the CMA from violating others rights ? Has staff been let go ? Or will the CMA continue to violate rights to reach conclusions that they want to end with?
That's where Easy-Ys and Dr. Dray are straight outta, right?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
In the UK civil service, when a fault in process is identified though any means, measures - i.e. changes to process - are put in place to prevent a reoccurrence. For a civil servant to be fired, there would have have to have been a finding of gross negligence of duty. That wasn't the case here, it was a process failure.
Staff being let go, feels so counterintuitive to me. In my company we want people to take charge, make decisions that is to the best for the company.
Now we know that making mistakes is human and people are guided along and protected from being able to make huge wrong decisions, but again firing people for making mistakes? How will they learn and grow? There is of course gross misconduct etc, but most people are not there, as long as people have a rationale for their decisions right or wrong, it's something to learn from.
There is no flowchart to follow and there is no strict old style military where the leader makes all the decisions, thats the least agile organisations you get.
Now we know that making mistakes is human and people are guided along and protected from being able to make huge wrong decisions, but again firing people for making mistakes? How will they learn and grow? There is of course gross misconduct etc, but most people are not there, as long as people have a rationale for their decisions right or wrong, it's something to learn from.
There is no flowchart to follow and there is no strict old style military where the leader makes all the decisions, thats the least agile organisations you get.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's been the same all large organisations I've worked in; be in Government, aerospace or defence. In most organisations "gross negligence" amounts to wrong-doing being where an individual was a) aware that it was wrong, b) knew it was avoidable, and c) committed through intentional negligence or malice. I.e. you know what you were doing was wrong.
Overnight, a story broke revealing a massive data breach with Microsoft Azure over several years, which lots of commercially confidential and CNI (critical national infrastructure - as in national security and stability) information being leaked, which is as bad as it gets. Should everybody involved be fired? Probably not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
True. Not sure it's the same in the UK but many top jobs in a US govt. organization are political appointees, so typically any staff to be fired are usually not long-term "dedicated" govt. employees.
Doesn't seem like that has happened since the article references other blunders and of course these are small mistakes they are costly mistakes in the millions or billions of dollars. Of course if it supports what the government wants they will turn a blind eye to it
Similar threads
