Reactions to Court Decision on T-Mobile-Sprint Merger

A federal judge has ruled in favor of Sprint and T-Mobile’s $26 billion merger. 

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: “I’m pleased with the district court’s decision. The T-Mobile-Sprint merger will help close the digital divide and secure United States leadership in 5G. After the merger, T-Mobile has committed to bringing 5G to 97% of our nation’s population within three years and 99% of Americans within six years. Its 5G network will also reach deep into rural areas, with 85% of rural Americans covered within three years and 90% covered within six years. This transaction represents a unique opportunity to speed up the deployment of 5G throughout the United States, put critical mid-band spectrum to more productive use, and bring much faster mobile broadband to rural Americans. I’m gratified that the federal district court agreed with the FCC and U.S. Department of Justice that this merger is lawful and should be allowed to proceed. This is a big win for American consumers.” 

FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly: “The New York District Court rightfully came to the same conclusion in considering the T-Mobile and Sprint merger as I did during my review, and I am pleased that the deeply flawed case made by the state Attorneys General was rejected. It is time to wrap up the entire process and allow these parties to merge. Once completed, a new T-Mobile will have certain commitments to meet, but I am excited to see it return to its mavericky style, quickly deploying 5G networks and intensely competing in the wireless marketplace, ultimately bearing out our expectation that it will provide consumers with new innovative offerings and a creative choice of packages.” 

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr: "Today’s court decision notches another solid win for U.S. leadership in 5G. The federal court saw what I saw in this combination: wireless competition in communities that have never had it; even stronger competition to market leaders Verizon and AT&T; and enforceable commitments that will accelerate the build out of fast 5G services to 99% of the U.S. population, which will help close the digital divide across rural America."

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: “This is disappointing. I am concerned that antitrust enforcement is not working for consumers. Going forward it is absolutely essential that the FCC enforce the promises made by these companies in their effort to secure approval from this agency. Any other outcome would be unacceptable—because in our 5G future we cannot afford to leave anyone behind.”

FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks: “The merger between T-Mobile and Sprint will dramatically alter America’s wireless landscape. The state Attorneys General presented a strong case. The court saw it differently. In particular, given how central DISH’s future role as a wireless competitor was to the court’s decision, I remain disappointed that those facts were not fully vetted in the merger that I voted on. Nevertheless, the merging parties have made significant promises – to lower prices, to deploy 5G throughout the country, and to increase the diversity of their suppliers, employees and executives. Moreover, DISH has promised to build a 5G network from scratch in a few short years. I look forward to seeing how these companies will fulfill their promises to the American people.”

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the DOJ's Antitrust Division:  “I am pleased and agree with Judge Marrero’s decision to deny the injunction, and particularly his conclusion that the department’s divestiture and remedy package resolves the competitive concerns in this case. This opinion is an important next step toward strengthening competition for high-quality 5G networks that will benefit American consumers nationwide. I am also grateful that the judge recognized the expertise of the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission in his evaluation of the transaction. As I have noted before, should a minority group of states, or even one, be able to undo the nationwide relief secured by the federal government, it would wreak havoc on parties’ ability to merge, on the government’s ability to settle cases, and cause real uncertainty in the market for procompetitive mergers and acquisitions.”

T-Mobile Chief Executive John Legere: “Today was a huge victory for this merger…and now we are FINALLY able to focus on the last steps to get this merger done! We want to thank the Court for its thorough review of the facts we presented in our case. We’ve said it all along: the New T-Mobile will be a supercharged Un-carrier that is great for consumers and great for competition. The broad and deep 5G network that only our combined companies will be able to bring to life is going to change wireless … and beyond. Look out Dumb and Dumber and Big Cable – we are coming for you … and you haven’t seen anything yet!”

Mike Siever, T-Mobile executive who will take over from current CEO John Legere who will leave in April: “Now we’re laser-focused on finishing the few open items that remain but our eye is on the prize: finally bringing this long-awaited merger and all the goodness it will deliver."

Sprint Executive Chairman Marcelo Claure: “Today brings us a big step closer to creating a combined company that will provide nationwide 5G, lower costs, and a high-performing network that will invigorate competition to the benefit of all mobile wireless and in-home broadband consumers. With the support of federal regulators and now this Court, we will focus on quickly completing the few remaining necessary steps to close this transaction. I am proud of my Sprint team’s dedication, passion and resilience throughout the merger review process, and we are ready to make the vision of a New T-Mobile a reality.”

Verizon: “For the past two years, while these companies focused on a merger, Verizon has remained focused on what we’ve done for the past 20 years — providing customers with the nation’s most reliable wireless network. Regardless of what happens when these two companies eventually get together, our customer-focused mission remains the same.”

Jessica Melugin, associate director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Technology and Innovation: “This is good news for U.S. consumers who benefit from economies of scale and free markets picking winners and losers, not bureaucrats or politicians. This merger isn’t about taking the number of wireless providers from four to three, it’s about letting the third and fourth biggest players combine in order to be a third provider of 5G, alongside Verizon and AT&T.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit: “From the start, this merger has been about massive corporate profits over all else, and despite the companies’ false claims, this deal will endanger wireless subscribers where it hurts most: their wallets. There is no doubt that reducing the mobile market from four to three will be bad for consumers, bad for workers, and bad for innovation, which is why the states stepped up and led this lawsuit.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra led the state coalition suing to block the deal: “Our fight to oppose this merger sends a strong message: even in the face of powerful opposition, we won’t hesitate to stand up for consumers who deserve choice and fair prices. We’ll stand on the side of competition over megamergers, every time. And our coalition is prepared to fight as long as necessary to protect innovation and competitive costs.”

Benton Senior Fellow Gigi Sohn: "What is left of American antitrust law when two of the nation’s four mobile wireless carriers are permitted to merge? The evidence in this case demonstrated plainly that the combination of T-Mobile and Sprint would lead to unprecedented concentration in both the national and local mobile wireless markets, resulting in higher prices and less competition. Indeed, evidence at trial showed that this was the result that T-Mobile’s executives desired. If this merger doesn’t “substantially lessen competition,” what merger does? In the end, consumers will be the losers, as they have over the past three decades of massive telecommunications and media mergers. Over and over again, consumers are promised enormous benefits and so-called “efficiencies” by merging parties. But what they are left with each time are corporate behemoths who can raise prices at will, use their gatekeeper power to destroy competition and new voices and hijack regulatory and legislative processes. We are already seeing this with the AT&T-Time Warner merger, where promises not to discriminate against rivals or raise prices were broken within months of being approved by a trial judge. Finally, while the evidence at trial showed that the Justice Department’s scheme to prop up Dish Network would not result in a fourth competitor that would be “timely, likely and sufficient,” Dish should be given every opportunity to succeed. This should include, at a minimum, strict oversight to ensure that T-Mobile doesn’t hinder Dish from competing and eventually building its own network. I commend that 14 state attorneys general for their hard work and determination in bringing this case. And I call on Congress to strengthen U.S. antitrust law without delay, as this decision will inevitably open the floodgates to combinations as bad or worse than the one approved today."

Greenlining Institute Technology equity director Paul Goodman: "We are profoundly disappointed that the judge approved a merger that will harm communities of color and low-income communities across California. T-Mobile's tepid promises to offer low-cost services were contradicted by T-Mobile's own experts, and T-Mobile's commitments are too vague and full of loopholes to ensure that the merger is in the public interest. The Greenlining Institute will continue to fight the merger at the California Public Utilities Commission to ensure that communities of color have access to affordable, high quality service."

Free Press VP of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood: “How many times will judges and antitrust enforcers be fooled by the empty promises these companies make to get these deals approved? Using an unhealthy mix of hubris, bad judgment, and petty politics, the FCC’s Republican majority and Donald Trump’s attorney general for antitrust decided to wave this deal through — reportedly ignoring the advice of staff at both agencies who had called to reject it. More than a dozen state AGs rightly stepped in to fill the void, making the obvious case that the competition between Sprint and T-Mobile benefits all wireless users and especially those who seek out lower-priced plans and greater value." 

Joshua Stager, senior counsel at New America’s Open Technology Institute: "Today's decision is a tremendous loss for consumers, the American economy, and antitrust law itself. This merger was plainly illegal from the moment it was announced, which is why the Trump Administration twisted itself into knots devising one of the most convoluted antitrust remedies in living memory. Markets don’t recover from mergers like this one—they turn into oligopolies marked by high prices, collusion, and inequality. Unfortunately, the court fundamentally misunderstood how the wireless market operates, and consumers will quite literally pay the price for its misguided ruling."

John Bergmayer, Legal Director at Public Knowledge: “This outcome puts consumers at risk. The states put on a strong case, and the DOJ’s proposed remedy is still very risky–at best we are losing a competitor today, in the hope of getting one back later. Certainly, if this merger proceeds, we hope the plan for DISH Network to enter the wireless marketplace as a new competitor works, and that wireless users will eventually benefit again from a market with four strong competitors. There will be a great deal of uncertainty for consumers in the meantime, as a result of this decision. New entry into the wireless market is not easy, especially when it requires the cooperation of your competitors, as under the DOJ’s proposal. It is more clear than ever that we need strengthened regulatory oversight of the communications industry to protect competition and consumer rights, as well as improvements to our antitrust laws.”

Rob Frieden, Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law, Penn State University: "This conclusion does not pass the smell test.  The court will note what a great competitor TMobile has been and how unviable Sprint will be in the middle to longer term.  OK, that observation makes sense and I’ll go one step further to note that Sprint recently has offered some of the best deals for consumers that the company probably could not continue to offer over time. I part company with the likely conclusion made by Judge Victor Marrero that the combined company will have every incentive to become even more competitive and innovative than what the two unaffiliated firms have generated and even what TMobile would generate even if Sprint were to falter and eventually exit the market."