To cancel the contract, which they claimed was detrimental to competition, the plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit against Microsoft in California in December.
Video game players had failed to demonstrate that they would suffer “irreparable harm” if the transaction went ahead, according to a decision made late on Friday by San Francisco Federal Court Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
Acquire “Call of Duty”
According to Microsoft and its lawyers, the transaction will benefit customers. Video game players’ allegations that Microsoft will restrict the game’s availability were rejected by Corley. He claimed there was no proof the corporation would stop producing current Call of Duty iterations following the anticipated acquisition.
They can continue playing with their friends the same way they did before the acquisition, Corley noted. Additionally, he declared that it was “unlikely” that Microsoft would make future iterations of “Call of Duty” exclusive to its platform.
- Plaintiffs sued Microsoft to cancel the contract, but the judge ruled against them.
- Microsoft’s acquisition of Call of Duty will benefit customers, not restrict it.
- Microsoft got authorization from the EU, but the deal was rejected by UK competition authorities.
An inquiry for comment made on Monday went unanswered by a Microsoft representative. Video game gamers lost the initial stage of their lawsuit against the contract, but their lawyer, Joseph Alioto, stated on Monday that they will still contest it.
Only a few days have passed since Microsoft got authorization from the antitrust authorities of the European Union for the transaction. The deal is up for examination by the Chinese and South Korean governments, as well as the US Federal Trade Commission.
The agreement, which was reportedly the biggest in the history of the gambling business, was rejected by UK competition authorities.
Microsoft has until May 24 to file an appeal in response to the ruling. Plaintiffs may file claims against mergers and acquisitions under US antitrust law.
