Ignore Microsoft’s whines about the Activision takeover. The CMA did its job

theguardian.com:

T he silliest line in Microsoft president Brad Smith’s whine about the UK was his claim that the Competition and Markets Authority is “not only unelected but unaccountable”. That is an absurdly over-the-top reaction to a regulatory thumbs-down in the UK, on entirely coherent grounds, for Microsoft’s planned $68.7bn (£55bn) takeover of the video games firm Activision Blizzard.

What does Smith want? A national poll to choose the directors of the independent body responsible for competition and consumer protection? In practice, one suspects, Smith would expect to see something like the UK’s current system. The chair of the CMA, its chief executive and the rest of the board are appointed by the business secretary of the elected government. Grant Shapps, holder of the post at the time, appointed Sarah Cardell as CMA chief executive last December.

As for accountability, Smith must know that CMA decisions can be appealed. Microsoft is free to take its argument to the Competition Appeals Tribunal, a separate body. And, if it doesn’t like what the CAT decides, it can trot along to the court of appeal for another go.

This setup is different from the one that operates in Smith’s and Microsoft’s home patch of the US, but not wildly so. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has to sue to block a deal (which, note, it is now doing in the Activision case). Ultimately, though, the process can end up in court in both countries.

That is why, one trusts, Rishi Sunak will ignore Smith’s invitation to “look hard at the role of the CMA and regulatory structure in the UK” if he wants the tech industry to flourish here. Microsoft can yank investment from the UK if it wishes, but another part of the global tech industry may be encouraged by