by Steven Palange, Managing Director & CSO, Soveraign Solutions

In crafting a legal argument for why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would not block Microsoft’s acquisition of CrowdStrike, it is essential to consider the legal framework governing mergers and acquisitions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the potential benefits to consumers.

Legal Framework: The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 requires parties to large mergers and acquisitions to file a detailed report with the FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) before completing the transaction1. The purpose is to allow these agencies to determine whether the proposed merger would “substantially lessen competition” or tend to create a monopoly. If the FTC or DOJ believes that the merger may have anticompetitive effects, they can request further information from the companies (a “second request”) or seek a court order to prevent the merger.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: In the event of litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provide the framework for civil proceedings in U.S. district courts. Rule 1 states that the FRCP “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”2. This principle would guide the procedural aspects of any legal challenge to the merger.

Consumer Interest Argument:

1. Enhanced Cybersecurity: The acquisition would bolster Microsoft’s cybersecurity portfolio, providing consumers with more robust protection against cyber threats. CrowdStrike’s advanced technologies would enhance Microsoft’s existing offerings, leading to a more secure digital environment for consumers3.
2. Cloud Security: As businesses increasingly rely on cloud services, the integration of CrowdStrike’s cloud security capabilities with Microsoft’s Azure platform would offer consumers a more secure and reliable cloud ecosystem3.
3. Threat Intelligence: Access to CrowdStrike’s threat intelligence and incident response expertise would enable Microsoft to deliver more proactive and effective cybersecurity solutions, directly benefiting consumers by reducing the risk of cyberattacks3.
4. Market Competition: The acquisition could be argued to promote competition by creating a stronger competitor in the cybersecurity market, potentially driving innovation and leading to better products and services for consumers3.
5. Consumer Choice: By expanding Microsoft’s market reach and customer base, the acquisition would not reduce consumer choice but rather enhance it by providing additional options for cybersecurity solutions3.

Precedent and Statutes:

• Precedent: In past cases where the FTC has challenged mergers, the courts have considered whether the merger would lead to higher prices, reduced quality, or less innovation. If Microsoft can demonstrate that the acquisition of CrowdStrike would result in lower prices, improved quality, and increased innovation, this would support the argument against FTC intervention.
• Statutes: The Clayton Act, particularly Section 7, prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Microsoft would need to show that the acquisition does not violate this standard.

In conclusion, the legal argument for the FTC not blocking the purchase of CrowdStrike by Microsoft rests on demonstrating that the merger would not substantially lessen competition but would instead benefit consumers through enhanced cybersecurity, better cloud security, and improved threat intelligence capabilities. The argument would be supported by the procedural fairness principles of the FRCP and relevant antitrust statutes and precedents.

In crafting a legal argument for why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would not block Microsoft’s acquisition of CrowdStrike, it is essential to consider the legal framework governing mergers and acquisitions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the potential benefits to consumers.

Legal Framework: The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 requires parties to large mergers and acquisitions to file a detailed report with the FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) before completing the transaction1. The purpose is to allow these agencies to determine whether the proposed merger would “substantially lessen competition” or tend to create a monopoly. If the FTC or DOJ believes that the merger may have anticompetitive effects, they can request further information from the companies (a “second request”) or seek a court order to prevent the merger.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: In the event of litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provide the framework for civil proceedings in U.S. district courts. Rule 1 states that the FRCP “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”2. This principle would guide the procedural aspects of any legal challenge to the merger.

Consumer Interest Argument:

1. Enhanced Cybersecurity: The acquisition would bolster Microsoft’s cybersecurity portfolio, providing consumers with more robust protection against cyber threats. CrowdStrike’s advanced technologies would enhance Microsoft’s existing offerings, leading to a more secure digital environment for consumers3.
2. Cloud Security: As businesses increasingly rely on cloud services, the integration of CrowdStrike’s cloud security capabilities with Microsoft’s Azure platform would offer consumers a more secure and reliable cloud ecosystem3.
3. Threat Intelligence: Access to CrowdStrike’s threat intelligence and incident response expertise would enable Microsoft to deliver more proactive and effective cybersecurity solutions, directly benefiting consumers by reducing the risk of cyberattacks3.
4. Market Competition: The acquisition could be argued to promote competition by creating a stronger competitor in the cybersecurity market, potentially driving innovation and leading to better products and services for consumers3.
5. Consumer Choice: By expanding Microsoft’s market reach and customer base, the acquisition would not reduce consumer choice but rather enhance it by providing additional options for cybersecurity solutions3.

Precedent and Statutes:

• Precedent: In past cases where the FTC has challenged mergers, the courts have considered whether the merger would lead to higher prices, reduced quality, or less innovation. If Microsoft can demonstrate that the acquisition of CrowdStrike would result in lower prices, improved quality, and increased innovation, this would support the argument against FTC intervention.
• Statutes: The Clayton Act, particularly Section 7, prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Microsoft would need to show that the acquisition does not violate this standard.

In conclusion, the legal argument for the FTC not blocking the purchase of CrowdStrike by Microsoft rests on demonstrating that the merger would not substantially lessen competition but would instead benefit consumers through enhanced cybersecurity, better cloud security, and improved threat intelligence capabilities. The argument would be supported by the procedural fairness principles of the FRCP and relevant antitrust statutes and precedents.

To construct a detailed legal defense for Microsoft and CrowdStrike against a potential FTC antitrust lawsuit, we would delve into the legal strategies that these companies might employ, drawing from historical antitrust cases, legal doctrines, and the specifics of the acquisition.

Microsoft’s Legal Defense:

1. Pro-Consumer Benefits:
2. Lack of Monopolization:
3. Efficiency Gains:
4. Innovation and Competition:
5. Rule of Reason:

CrowdStrike’s Legal Defense:

1. Expansion of Services:
2. Data Security Leadership:
3. Strategic Acquisitions:
4. Innovation Focus:
5. No Reduction in Competition:

In summary, both Microsoft and CrowdStrike would present a multifaceted defense focusing on the pro-competitive, innovative, and consumer-beneficial aspects of the acquisition. They would likely draw on legal precedents, the rule of reason, and the specifics of the cybersecurity industry to argue against any claims of anticompetitive behavior. The defense would be grounded in the notion that the merger is a strategic move to enhance cybersecurity offerings and is not intended to harm competition or consumer choice.

Please note that the above arguments are hypothetical and based on general legal principles and past defenses in antitrust cases. For actual legal advice or a detailed analysis, consulting with legal professionals is necessary.

Thanks for Reading!

Hold on a second! You should get my articles sent straight to your newsfeed. Subscribe here to stay updated and ahead in technology with your business.

Book a time to meet with me.

Subscribe to “AI for Security & Productivity

View my LinkedIn Posts to Audit my Security Expertise