PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGESIn the Matter ofMicrosoft Corp.
a corporation;

Docket No. 9412

andActivision Blizzard, Inc.
a corporation.

ANSWER AND DEFENSES
OF RESPONDENT MICROSOFT CORP.
Pursuant to Rule 3.12 of the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC” or the “Commission”)
Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings (the “Rules”), Respondent Microsoft Corp.
(“Microsoft”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files the following answer to theCommission’s Administrative Complaint (the “Complaint”) against Microsoft.
INTRODUCTION
This case involves a transaction between the third-place manufacturer of gaming consoles
and one of many publishers of popular video games. Microsoft competes in gaming through its
Xbox division (“Xbox”). Xbox started behind Nintendo and Sony when it began making consoles
20 years ago, and it remains in third place today. Xbox also has next to no presence in mobile
gaming, the fastest-growing segment of gaming and the place where 94% of gamers spend theirtime today. And Xbox and Respondent Activision Blizzard King (“Activision”) are just two of
hundreds of game publishers, who compete by providing different types of games on different
1PUBLIC
platforms at different prices, ranging all the way down to $0.
Microsoft is buying Activision to try to become more competitive in this expanding global
industry. Its vision for the transaction is simple: Xbox wants to grow its presence in mobile
gaming, and three quarters of Activision’s gamers and more than a third of its revenues come frommobile offerings. Xbox also believes it is good business to make Activision’s limited portfolio of
popular games more accessible to consumers, by putting them on more platforms and making themmore affordable. That includes making Call of Duty, one of Activision’s most popular games,
more broadly available. Microsoft made this public pledge on the day the deal was announced.
Since then, Xbox has agreed to provide the game to Nintendo (which does not currently have it)
and has offered

to Sony.

The acquisition of a single game by the third-place console manufacturer cannot upend ahighly competitive industry. That is particularly so when the manufacturer has made clear it will
not withhold the game. The fact that Xbox’s dominant competitor has thus far refused to accept
Xbox’s proposal does not justify blocking a transaction that will benefit consumers. Giving
consumers high-quality content in more ways and at lower prices is what the antitrust laws aresupposed to promote, not prevent.
***Gaming is the biggest and fastest-growing entertainment industry in the world. Not toolong ago, people primarily played video games in arcades, or purchased cartridges or discs to playon game consoles in their homes. The industry looks very different today. Gaming is now more
popular than television, books, music, or movies. The industry generates hundreds of billions ofdollars of revenue a year, and is projected to grow substantially in the future.
The choices available to gamers today are growing. Gamers play not just on consoles, but
2

PUBLIC
also on PCs, mobile devices, and even directly on some televisions. Game developers are churningout an ever-increasing variety of games, ranging from role-play in complex fantasy worlds tosports simulations to simple puzzles. Hits come out of nowhere, providing consumers with choices
beyond the iconic and treasured games they grew up playing. Indeed, while franchises like
Activision’s Call of Duty and Electronic Arts’ FIFA have been popular for a long time, so too aregames like Minecraft, Splitgate, Player Unknown: Battlegrounds, Clash of Clans, and Among Us,
which burst onto the scene and achieved great success despite being developed by smaller studios.
Gamers also pay for games in different ways. They can buy individual games—today,
primarily by downloading them, rather than purchasing cartridges or discs. They can subscribe toservices that offer the ability to play a variety of games for a monthly fee. And they can turn tofree-to-play games, which may be funded by in-game advertising and in-game purchases (forexample, of additional levels or of additional characters).
A few companies, primarily located abroad, exercise outsize influence in this industry.
Xbox is not one of them. Xbox’s console lags well behind Sony’s and Nintendo’s. While Xbox
publishes games for consoles and PCs, it has far fewer popular exclusive games than Sony andNintendo. And Xbox has almost no presence in mobile gaming, which is the largest and fastestgrowing segment of gaming.

3

PUBLIC

Microsoft is buying Activision to meet the billions of gamers who choose to play on mobile
devices instead of a console or PC, and to learn how to make games that appeal to and engage
them. Xbox also wants to make Activision’s non-mobile games more broadly available. One way
is by continuing to distribute Activision’s games everywhere they currently exist and expanding
to additional platforms like Nintendo. Another is by adding new Activision console and PC games4

PUBLIC
to Xbox’s Game Pass subscription service on the day those new games are released, creating new
ways to access those games. Activision has never before put its new games immediately insubscription.
Maintaining broad availability of Activision games is both good business and good forgamers. A substantial portion of Activision’s financial value to Xbox comes from business as
usual, including the continued sale of Call of Duty—its most popular game—on SonyPlayStation. Paying $68.7 billion for Activision makes no financial sense if that revenue stream
goes away. Nor would it make sense to degrade the game experience and alienate the millions ofCall of Duty players who play together using different types of consoles. The reputational hit toXbox would not be worth any theoretical economic benefit from taking Call of Duty away fromcompetitors.
It is therefore unsurprising that after nearly a full year investigating this transaction,
receiving millions of Microsoft and Activision documents, and speaking to over a dozen witnesses,
there is no evidence that Xbox intends to take Call of Duty away from PlayStation—or any
platform at all. No emails, no text messages, no testimony. There is one reason for that: Xbox
does not intend to take that step. Xbox has some exclusive games, which are a necessary featureof any content business. But Xbox cannot afford to take Activision’s games exclusive without
undercutting the basic economics of the transaction. That is why Microsoft has offered to keep
Call of Duty on PlayStation from the moment this deal was announced. Xbox’s proposal
and would extend for ten years—
an unheard-of length for contracts in the gaming industry.
Xbox has made this same offer to other competitors, and at least one (Nintendo) has
accepted to date. Sony refuses to deal. But a vertical merger causes anticompetitive harm only
5

PUBLIC
when the acquired input is “essential.” If Call of Duty were truly essential, Sony would have noreason to refuse.

The Complaint’s reference to Microsoft’s recent acquisition of ZeniMax—a set of gaming
studios acquired in 2020—has no relevance to the current transaction. After that transaction
closed, ZeniMax’s first two new games were made exclusive to PlayStation for one year postlaunch. Xbox anticipates that three future titles—
all of which are designed to be played primarily alone or in small groups—will be exclusive toXbox and PCs. But consistent with its historic approach, Xbox has continued to release new
updates of existing ZeniMax games such as Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Online on both Xbox and
PlayStation, because these games are designed to be played together by broad communities ofgamers on different platforms. This last set of games is the one most analogous to Call of Duty.
So the ZeniMax experience cuts against the idea that Xbox would make that game exclusive. And
it is not just the ZeniMax games where Xbox has taken this approach; Xbox has also expanded(not contracted) access to Minecraft, a similar multiplayer game with a large existing communityof gamers who play together from different platforms, since it was acquired. If there were any
remaining doubt, Xbox’s offer to put Call of Duty on other platforms on commercially favorable
terms for those platforms should eliminate it.
Any suggestion that Microsoft’s statements to the European Commission about ZeniMax
were misleading is incorrect. Microsoft explicitly said it would honor Sony’s existing exclusivity
rights and approach exclusivity for future game titles on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly
what it has done. The European Commission agrees it was not misled, stating publicly the day
after the Complaint that Microsoft did not make any “commitments” to the European Commission,
nor did the European Commission “rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future
6

PUBLIC
distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax’s games.” Instead, the European Commission cleared
the transaction “unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition
concerns.”
Lastly, the gaming subscription service and cloud gaming service Xbox offers are notdifferent products. The services allow consumers to access games in different ways, whether bypaying a low monthly price for a broad catalog of games or playing a game on a variety of devices
without first downloading it. But the games themselves are identical. Xbox believes thesealternative payment and distribution models may have promise in the future. But consumers will
ultimately decide whether Xbox is correct. If they agree with Xbox’s vision, that will simply
prompt more competition, including from companies like Sony, which already has a successful
subscription service without even including its most popular (and exclusive) games on the day
they are released. Sony may prefer to protect the revenues it gets from more expensive individual
game sales, but the antitrust laws do not serve to insulate the dominant market player and its
favored business model from competition.
Ultimately, the Commission cannot meet its burden of showing that the transaction would
leave consumers worse off, because the transaction will allow consumers to play Activision’s
games on new platforms and access them in new and more affordable ways. The relief sought in
the Complaint should be denied.
GENERAL RESPONSES TO THE COMMISSION’S ALLEGATIONS
Except to the extent specifically stated herein, Microsoft denies each and every allegation
contained in the Complaint. Use of headings and subheadings from the Complaint is solely forthe benefit of the reader. Microsoft does not interpret the headings and subheading throughout
7

PUBLICthe Complaint as well-pleaded allegations to which any response is required. To the extent sucha response is required, Microsoft denies all allegations in the headings and subheadings of theComplaint. The Commission’s unnumbered introductory paragraph characterizes this action andasserts legal arguments and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent such a
response is required, Microsoft denies the allegations in the Commission’s unnumberedintroductory paragraph. Use of certain terms or phrases defined in the Complaint is not an
acknowledgement or admission of any characterization the Commission may ascribe to thedefined terms. Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms shall refer to the capitalized terms
defined in the Complaint, but any such use is not an acknowledgement or admission of any
characterization the Commission may ascribe to the capitalized terms.
Microsoft does not concede the truthfulness of third-party articles and news sources
quoted or referenced in the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Microsoft denies
all allegations of the third-party articles and news sources quoted in or referenced in the
Complaint. Microsoft additionally denies that the Commission is entitled to any of the relief
sought in the Notice of Contemplated Relief on page 23 of the Complaint. Microsoft reserves
the right to amend and/or supplement this Answer at a later stage of the proceedings as permitted
by the Rules. Each paragraph below corresponds to the same-numbered paragraph in the
Complaint.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THE COMMISSION’S ALLEGATIONSI.
1.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Paragraph 1 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies those8

PUBLIC
allegations. Microsoft admits that it seeks to acquire Activision for $68.7 billion; and that theacquisition would be the highest numerical dollar amount that Microsoft will have paid for an
acquisition in its history. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient toform a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the relative size of this acquisition
within the gaming industry.

Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in

Paragraph 1.
2.

Microsoft admits that its gaming division, Xbox, develops and sells video game

consoles and video games (including the video game, Halo); that games created in-house aresometimes referred to as “first-party” titles; that Xbox offers a multigame subscription service,
Xbox Game Pass, which provides subscribers with access to a catalog of hundreds of video
games to play on console or PC; and that the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate tier offers “cloud
gaming” functionality allowing subscribers to stream certain games for play across a variety ofdevices including consoles, PCs, tablets, and mobile phones. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 2.
3.

Microsoft admits that Activision develops and publishes video games for

multiple devices, including video game consoles, PCs, and mobile devices; that Activision’s
games include high-quality games; and that the term “AAA” lacks a defined meaning in theindustry. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
4.

Microsoft admits that Activision develops Diablo, Overwatch, and Call of Duty.

Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4.
5.

Microsoft admits that Overwatch 2 was released recently and made available forplay on multiple gaming devices, including the Nintendo Switch and PCs; and that Diablo IV
is slated for release in 2023. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient
9PUBLIC
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the lifetime revenues of the Diablo
and Overwatch game titles; or as to the truth of the allegations concerning when Diablo was
first introduced and whether its upcoming release is highly anticipated. Microsoft denies theremaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5.
6.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthof the allegations concerning industry perceptions of Call of Duty and Call of Duty’s original
release date; or as to the truth of the allegations concerning Call of Duty’s launch and typicalrelease schedule and the resources and budget Activision allocates to Call of Duty, including
the number of studios that work on Call of Duty. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 6.
7.

Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of allegations concerning Call of Duty’s revenues, sales, and monthly active
users. To the extent the Complaint is referencing documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the
Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 7.
8.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.

9.

Microsoft admits that it produces its own first-party video game titles; and thatsince 2018, it has acquired 8 companies, one of which operates multiple studios. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10.

Paragraph 10 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies the10

PUBLIC
allegations contained in Paragraph 10.
11.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.

12.

Microsoft admits that it acquired ZeniMax, the parent company of a gamedeveloper, in 2021; that following its acquisition of ZeniMax, all ZeniMax titles have beenreleased on PlayStation, including two ZeniMax titles that were exclusive to PlayStation upon
release as well as new updates of Elder Scrolls Online; and that some future ZeniMax games
may be exclusive to Xbox and PC when they are initially released. Microsoft further avers that
this approach is consistent with its representations to the European Commission (“EC”), as theEC has publicly stated. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12.
13.

Paragraph 13 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. To the extent the Complaint is quoting from one or more unidentified sources,
Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to any such source for an accurate and complete
statement of its contents. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient toform a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning Activision’s incentives and businessstrategy. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13.
14.

Paragraph 14 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 14.
II.
15.

JURISDICTION

Paragraph 15 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired.
11

PUBLIC
16.

Paragraph 16 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired.
17.

Paragraph 17 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 17.
III.
18.

RESPONDENTS AND THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION

Microsoft admits that it is a publicly traded company incorporated in Washington

with headquarters in Redmond, Washington; that it sells software, services, and devices acrossthe technology industry; that its gaming division, Xbox, produces specialized Xbox hardware
and sells Xbox content and services; and that for fiscal year 2022, Microsoft’s gaming revenue
was $16.23 billion and total revenue was $198.27 billion. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
19.

Microsoft admits that Activision is a publicly traded company, incorporated in

the State of Delaware with headquarters in Santa Monica, California; and that Activisiondevelops and publishes video games for consoles, PCs, and mobile devices. Microsoft aversthat it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 19.
20.

Microsoft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 20.
IV.

21.

BACKGROUND

Paragraph 21 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21.
12

PUBLIC
22.

Microsoft admits that gaming is a part of the entertainment industry; that in 2020

the gaming industry was worth $165 billion, with $85 billion coming from mobile gaming, $40
billion coming from PC gaming, $33 billion coming from console gaming, and the remaining
revenue coming from cloud, VR, handheld, and arcade gaming. Microsoft lacks knowledge orinformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the total
revenues of the gaming industry in 2022. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations containedin Paragraph 22.
23.

Microsoft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.

24.

Microsoft admits that video game content can be played on consoles, PCs, andmobile devices. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 24.
25.

Microsoft admits that consumers purchase consoles for a variety of reasons.

Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 25.
26.

Microsoft admits that the most popular gaming consoles include Sony’s

PlayStation, Nintendo’s Switch, and Microsoft’s Xbox.

Microsoft denies the remaining

allegations contained in Paragraph 26.
27.

Microsoft admits that there has been vigorous competition in the gaming

industry for decades, including competition among video game console makers. Microsoft
avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of theallegations concerning the views of unidentified industry participants. To the extent theComplaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents
for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 27.
28.

Microsoft admits that Xbox, Sony, and Nintendo all currently offer competing
13

PUBLIC
gaming consoles; that Xbox and Sony released their most recent consoles (the Xbox Series X|Sand the PlayStation 5, respectively) in 2020; and that Nintendo released its most recent console(the Nintendo Switch) in 2017. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 28.
29.

Microsoft admits that the Xbox Series X|S are two Xbox consoles offered byMicrosoft; that the Xbox Series X is the faster, more powerful model; and that the Xbox Series
S is a simpler and more affordable model. To the extent the Complaint is quoting fromdocuments, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate andcomplete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 29.
30.

Microsoft admits that it tracks the performance of its Xbox consoles relative toother gaming consoles on the market. To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents,
Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statementof their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30.
31.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from or characterizing statements madeduring an earnings call, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to a transcript or recording of
the call for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 31.
32.

Microsoft admits that the Xbox Series S console is less expensive than the Xbox

Series X console and the PlayStation 5 console. To the extent the Complaint is quoting fromdocuments, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate andcomplete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 32.
14

PUBLIC33.

Microsoft admits that different consoles have different technical specifications,

including varied graphical processing capabilities; that the Nintendo Switch console allows
portable, handheld use; and that the Nintendo Switch console and Xbox Series S console areless expensive than the Xbox Series X console and the PlayStation 5 console. Microsoft denies
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33.
34.

Microsoft admits that gamers have purchased and continue to purchase games

through a buy-to-play model, purchasing either physical or digital copies of individual games
for play on gaming consoles, PCs, or other devices. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 34.
35.

Microsoft admits that multigame subscription services generally allow gamers

to access a catalog of games for a recurring fee. Microsoft also admits that it launched its own
multigame subscription service, Xbox Game Pass, in 2017; and that other companies have also
launched multigame subscription services in recent years. Microsoft further admits that Xbox
Game Pass had 10 million subscribers in 2020 and 25 million subscribers in 2022. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 35.
36.

Microsoft admits that Xbox Game Pass is a multigame subscription service thatprovides subscribers with access to a rotating catalog of hundreds of games. Microsoft further
admits that there are three Game Pass offerings: a “Console” offering that allows subscribers
to download-to-play a catalog of console games on Xbox; a “PC” offering that allows
subscribers to download-to-play a catalog of PC games on PC; and an “Ultimate” version thatprovides additional features, including the ability to stream a selection of games from the cloudto various devices. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 36.
37.

Microsoft admits that Sony offers a multigame subscription service known as
15

PUBLICPlayStation Plus that, like Game Pass, offers multiple tiers of pricing, including a top tier thatis reported to provide cloud streaming capabilities. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge orinformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the otherfeatures and game offerings available on PlayStation Plus, as well as the pricing of thissubscription service. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 37.
38.

Microsoft admits that EA Play and Ubisoft+ are other multigame subscription

services. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief asto the truth of the allegations concerning the game offerings of EA Play and Ubisoft+, as wellas the pricing of these subscription services. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 38.
39.

Microsoft admits that video games are typically downloaded to a device andplayed locally; and that at least since 2013, companies have also offered cloud gaming services
that allow players to play games without downloading them locally, in limited circumstances,by streaming games to compatible devices via remote servers. Microsoft avers that it lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning
the features available on cloud gaming services other than those offered by Xbox Cloud
Gaming. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 39.
40.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting or characterizing from one or more

unidentified sources, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to any such source for an accurate
and complete statement of its contents. Microsoft admits that cloud gaming has the potential
to broaden access to gaming by expanding the universe of devices that can play games.
Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthof the allegations concerning the features available on cloud gaming services other than those16

PUBLIC
offered by Xbox Cloud Gaming. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 40.
41.

Microsoft admits that it launched cloud gaming as part of the Ultimate tier of its

Game Pass subscription service in September 2020; and that more than 20 million gamers haveused the service to stream games from the cloud. To the extent the Complaint is referencing
documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate andcomplete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 41.
42.

Microsoft admits that Amazon Luna, Nvidia GeForce NOW, and Google Stadia

are other existing cloud gaming services; and that Alphabet Inc. has announced that it is
discontinuing Google Stadia in January 2023. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge orinformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning how thesecloud gaming services price and host their services. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 42.
43.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthof the other allegations concerning unidentified industry participants. Microsoft denies theremaining allegations contained in Paragraph 43.
44.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting or characterizing testimony from an

investigational hearing of a Microsoft witness, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to thefull testimony for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. To the extent theComplaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents
17

PUBLIC
for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 44.
45.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45.

46.

Microsoft admits that Activision, Electronic Arts, Take-Two, and Ubisoft are

sometimes referred to as the “Big 4”; and that they publish Call of Duty (Activision), FIFA
(EA), Grand Theft Auto (Take-Two), and Assassin’s Creed (Ubisoft), respectively. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 46.
47.

Microsoft admits that Epic Games makes Fortnite, a free-to-play game released

in 2017 that is one of the most popular games in the United States and the world; and that
Activision, Electronic Arts, Take-Two, Ubisoft, and Epic are sometimes referred to as the “Big4 + Epic.” Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 47.
48.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 48.
49.

Microsoft admits that Xbox produces the franchises Elder Scrolls, Halo, andForza; and that Sony produces the franchises God of War, MLB The Show, and Spider-Man.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 49.
50.

Microsoft admits that Halo Infinite was in production for

approximately

years and cost

million to produce. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations containedin Paragraph 50.
51.

Microsoft admits that it wants a variety of content available on Xbox and Game

Pass. To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the
Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft
18

PUBLIC
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 51.
52.

Microsoft admits that it is valuable to have a variety of content available on Xboxand Game Pass. To the extent the Complaint is quoting or characterizing testimony from an
investigational hearing of a Microsoft witness, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to thefull testimony for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. To the extent theComplaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents
for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 52.
53.

Microsoft admits that gaming companies may make some titles exclusive to some

platforms. To the extent the Complaint is referencing documents, Microsoft respectfully refers
the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 53.
54.

Microsoft admits that it is valuable to have a variety of content available on Xboxand Game Pass; and that the size of a platform’s player base may be one of many factors usedin negotiations with publishers and developers. To the extent the Complaint is quoting fromdocuments, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate andcomplete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 54.
55.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from a document, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the document for an accurate and complete statement of its contents.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 55.
56.

Microsoft admits that it anticipates thatTo the extent the Complaint is quoting
19

PUBLIC
from documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate andcomplete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 56.
57.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting or characterizing testimony from an

investigational hearing of an Activision witness, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to thefull testimony for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. Microsoft avers that it
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
concerning testimony from an Activision witness. To the extent the Complaint is quoting fromdocuments, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate andcomplete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 57.
58.

Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of Activision’s purported current or future numbers of monthly active users; oras to the truth of Activision’s. To the extent theComplaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents
for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 58.
59.

Microsoft admits that Call of Duty was first released in 2003. To the extent theComplaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents
for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.

Microsoft avers that it lacks

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning
the sales of different iterations of Call of Duty and the sales of Top Gun: Maverick. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 59.
20

PUBLICV.
60.

RELEVANT MARKETSParagraph 60 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations.

Microsoft admits the proposed acquisition will result in a combined firm.

Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 60.
61.

Paragraph 61 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 61.
62.

Paragraph 62 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 62.
63.

Paragraph 63 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 63.
64.

Paragraph 64 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 64.
65.

Paragraph 65 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 65.
66.

Microsoft admits that Xbox, Sony, and Nintendo all currently offer competing

gaming consoles; that different consoles offer different types of performance, including varied
graphical processing capabilities; that the Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5 consoles are plug21

PUBLICin devices that connect to an external display like a television, whereas the Nintendo Switch
console is a portable battery-operated device with a built-in display screen and detachable
controllers that can be connected to an external display; that the Xbox Series X and PlayStation
5 consoles are both priced higher than the Xbox Series S and Nintendo Switch consoles; that
console competitors offer overlapping gaming content; that Nintendo offers third-party content
on the Switch console; that Xbox and Sony released their most recent consoles (the Xbox Series
X|S and the PlayStation 5, respectively) in 2020; and that Nintendo released its most recent
console (the Nintendo Switch) in 2017. To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents,
Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statementof their contents. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form abelief as to the truth of the allegations concerning competitors’ business strategies and theprecise technical specifications of competitor devices.

Microsoft denies the remaining

allegations contained in Paragraph 66.
67.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and compete statement of their content.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 67.
68.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 68.

69.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthof the purported industry source estimates.

Microsoft denies the remaining allegations

contained in Paragraph 69.
70.

Paragraph 70 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response is22

PUBLIC
required. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 70.
71.

Paragraph 71 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. To the extent the Complaint is characterizing witness testimony from a trial inanother matter, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the full testimony for an accurate andcomplete statement of its contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 71.
72.

Paragraph 72 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 72.
73.

Paragraph 73 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 73.
74.

Paragraph 74 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 74.
75.

Microsoft admits that it has a multigame subscription service known as Xbox

Game Pass, which has three offerings and gives gamers access to a catalog of hundreds ofgames; that Game Pass Ultimate provides access to Xbox Cloud Gaming, along with otherfeatures; and that these combined Game Pass offerings currently have approximately 25 million
subscribers. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 75.
76.

Microsoft admits that gaming companies compete to improve their platforms,
23

PUBLIC
including by offering multigame subscription services; that Xbox is working to develop Game
Pass into a better multigame subscription service; and that Microsoft attempts to provide its
users with a varied and rotating catalog of games. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge orinformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations concerning
unidentified industry participants and their business practices. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 76.
77.

Microsoft admits that multigame subscription services are a different way to pay

for games than the traditional buy-to-play model; and that for some customers the multigame
subscription model may be cheaper than the buy-to-play model in some circumstances.
Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthof the allegations concerning unidentified industry participants and their business practices.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 77.
78.

Microsoft admits that it considers a variety of factors in pricing its products andservices, including the pricing strategies of its competitors. Microsoft avers that it lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning
unidentified subscription services other than its own. To the extent the Complaint is quoting
from and characterizing documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the documents
for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 78.
79.

Paragraph 79 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft admits that some multigame subscription services provide users withaccess to hundreds of games for fixed periods of time; and that multigame subscription services
24

PUBLICcan allow gamers to discover new content they may otherwise have missed or not purchased.
To the extent the Complaint is relying on documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court tothe documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies theremaining allegations contained in Paragraph 79.
80.

Paragraph 80 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft admits that Xbox Live Gold and PlayStation Plus Essential offer fewer
game choices to subscribers than some other subscription offerings. Microsoft denies theremaining allegations contained in Paragraph 80.
81.

Paragraph 81 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft admits that in some circumstances mobile-native games can havedifferent levels of complexity and game quality than console- and PC-native games. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 81.
82.

Paragraph 82 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 82.
83.

Paragraph 83 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent that a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 83.
84.

Paragraph 84 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 84.
25

PUBLIC85.

Paragraph 85 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 85.
86.

Microsoft admits that cloud gaming may, provided certain conditions (such as theavailability of sufficient Internet access) are met, allow customers to stream some games fromthe cloud rather than downloading them to play locally on their devices, including on consoles,
PCs, and mobile devices.

Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in

Paragraph 86.
87.

Microsoft admits that cloud gaming allows customers to stream games from thecloud that may have been developed for other devices or operating systems; and that this may
allow some consumers who are unable to afford more expensive devices to stream those games.
To the extent the Complaint is relying on documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court tothe documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies theremaining allegations contained in Paragraph 87.
88.

Microsoft admits that cloud gaming may allow some consumers who are unable

to afford more expensive devices to stream games they would not have been able to without
cloud gaming. To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 88.
89.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 89.
90.

Microsoft admits that Xbox made a significant investment in Xbox Cloud
26

PUBLIC
Gaming; and that Xbox Cloud Gaming is operated by using custom-built servers in Microsoft
data centers to remotely run Xbox console games via Xbox’s specialized console hardware.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 90.
91.

Paragraph 91 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 91.
92.

Paragraph 92 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 92.
93.

Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations concerning unidentified industry participants. To the extent
the Complaint is quoting from and characterizing documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the
Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 93.
94.

Microsoft admits that as of the first quarter of 2022, Xbox had 25 million Game

Pass subscribers, including a substantial number in the United States; and that Game Pass prices
vary in some locations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 94.
95.

Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations concerning other industry participants. Microsoft admits thatcloud gaming requires advanced technology and sufficient Internet services. Microsoft denies
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 95.

27

PUBLICVI.
96.

ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS

Paragraph 96 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 96.
97.

Paragraph 97 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft admits that it is valuable to have a variety of content available on Xboxand Game Pass. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 97.
98.

Paragraph 98 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 98.
99.

Microsoft admits that it is valuable to have a variety of content available on

Xbox and Game Pass. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 99.
100.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 100.
101.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 101.
102.

Microsoft admits that in its current revenue-sharing agreement with Activision,

28

PUBLICTo the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft
respectfully refers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of theircontents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 102.
103.

Microsoft admits it seeks to acquire Activision and its content. Microsoft denies

the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 103.
104.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 104.

105.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 105.

106.

Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations concerning Activision’s collaboration with other gaming
hardware manufacturers and the goals of that collaboration. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 106.
107.

Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations concerning. Microsoft admits that a GPU (or Graphics Processing Unit) is a hardware
component that renders graphics for video games. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 107.
108. Microsoft admits that gaming is a growing market with significant revenues.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 108.
109. Paragraph 109 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies thoseallegations. Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations concerning Activision’s intentions pre-acquisition. Microsoft
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 109.
29

PUBLIC110.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 110.

111.

Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations about Activision’s alleged presentation to. To theextent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the
documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents. Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 111.
112.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 112.

113.

To the extent the Complaint is relying on unidentified statements or sources,

Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to those sources for an accurate and complete statementof their contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 113.
114. To the extent the Complaint is referencing documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft admits that it acquired ZeniMax, the parent company of a game developer; that
following its acquisition of ZeniMax, all released ZeniMax titles have been available on
PlayStation, including two ZeniMax titles that were exclusive to PlayStation upon release as
well as new updates of Elder Scrolls Online; and that some future ZeniMax games may be
exclusive to Xbox and PC when they are initially released. Microsoft denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 114.
115.

Microsoft denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 115.

116.

To the extent the Complaint is quoting from documents, Microsoft respectfullyrefers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 116.
117. To the extent the Complaint is referencing documents, Microsoft respectfully
30

PUBLIC
refers the Court to the documents for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 117.
118.

Paragraph 118 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 118.
119. Paragraph 119 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 119.
VII.
120.

ABSENCE OF COUNTERVAILING FACTORSParagraph 120 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 120.
121.

Paragraph 121 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 121.
VIII.
122.

VIOLATION

Microsoft incorporates its responses to each of the allegations contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 121 as if they were stated in this Paragraph.
123.

Paragraph 123 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 123.
124.

Paragraph 124 purports to state conclusions of law to which no response is31

PUBLIC
required. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies theallegations contained in Paragraph 124.
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
Microsoft asserts the following defenses with respect to the causes of action alleged in the
Complaint, without assuming the burden of proof or persuasion where such burden rests on theCommission. Microsoft has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable defenses, andit reserves the right to assert and rely upon other applicable defenses that may become available orapparent throughout the course of the action. Microsoft reserves the right to supplement its
defenses as discovery progresses.
1.

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2.

The Complaint fails to allege a plausible relevant product market or markets.

3.

The Complaint fails to allege a plausible relevant geographic market.

4.

The Complaint fails to allege undue share in any plausibly defined relevantmarket.

5.

The Complaint fails to allege any harm to competition.

6.

The Complaint fails to allege any harm to consumers or consumer welfare.

7.

The combination of Microsoft’s gaming business with Activision’s business will
be procompetitive. The transaction will result in substantial acquisition-specificefficiencies, synergies, and other procompetitive effects that will directly benefit
consumers.

These benefits will greatly outweigh any and all proffered

anticompetitive effects.
8.

There will be no harm to competition, consumers, or consumer welfare because
32PUBLIC
there is, and will continue to be, entry and expansion by competitors, which istimely, likely, and sufficient.
9.

The alleged harm to potential competition is not actionable.

10.

The Commission cannot provide clear proof that the combination of Microsoft’s
gaming business and Activision’s business would restrain trade in the alleged
markets for “multi-game content library subscription services” or “cloud gaming
subscription services” because but-for the proposed transaction, Activision’s
games would not be available on any such service.

11.

The Commission fails to allege a time frame for the alleged anticompetitiveeffects.

12.

The Commission is not entitled to relief because none of Microsoft’s conduct
identified in the Complaint is actionable—independently or in the aggregate—
under the antitrust laws.

13.

Microsoft’s offers of binding contractual commitments to continue to offer
certain titles like Call of Duty to other gaming companies, including Nintendo
and Sony, for at least ten years address all of the alleged anticompetitive effects
in the alleged markets and ensure that there will be no harm to competition or
consumers.

14.

The Commission’s claims are too speculative to support any claim on which
relief can be granted.

15.

Neither the filing of this administrative action nor the contemplated relief is in
the public interest, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45.

16.

The Complaint reflects improper selective enforcement of the antitrust laws.
33

PUBLIC
17.

These proceedings are invalid because the structure of the Commission as anindependent agency that wields significant executive power, and the associatedconstraints on removal of the Commissioners and other Commission officials,
violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers.

18.

These proceedings are invalid because adjudication of the Commission’sComplaint by the ALJ and the Commission violates Article III of the U.S.
Constitution and the separation of powers.

19.

The Commission’s procedures arbitrarily subject Microsoft to administrative
proceedings rather than to proceedings before an Article III judge in violation of
Microsoft’s right to Equal Protection under the Fifth Amendment.

20.

The Commission’s procedures violate Microsoft’s right to procedural due
process under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

21.

The structure of these administrative proceedings, in which the Commission both
initiates and finally adjudicates the Complaint against Microsoft, violates
Microsoft’s Fifth Amendment Due Process right to adjudication before a neutral
arbiter.

22.

These administrative proceedings violate Microsoft’s Fifth Amendment Due
Process right to adjudication before a neutral arbiter as applied to Microsoft
because the Commission has prejudged the merits of the instant action.

23.

The Commission’s charges under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act are unlawful to the extent the Commission purports to apply Section 5
beyond the metes and bounds of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

34

PUBLICWHEREFORE, Microsoft respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter anorder:
1.

Denying the Commission’s contemplated relief;

2.

Dismissing the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice;

3.

Awarding Microsoft its costs of suit; and4.

Awarding such other and further relief as the Administrative Law Judge may
deem proper.

Dated: December 22, 2022

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Beth Wilkinson
Beth Wilkinson
Rakesh N. Kilaru
Kieran Gostin
Grace L. Hill
Anastasia M. Pastan
Sarah E. NeumanWilkinson Stekloff LLP
2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 847-4000
Fax: (202) 847-4005
bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com
rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com
kgostin@wilkinsonstekloff.com
ghill@wilkinsonstekloff.com
apastan@wilkinsonstekloff.com
sneuman@wilkinsonstekloff.com
Michael Moiseyev
Megan A. Granger
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
2001 M Street NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 682-7026
michael.moiseyev@weil.com
megan.granger@weil.com
Counsel for Microsoft Corp.
35

PUBLICCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 22, 2022, I caused a true and correct copy of theforegoing to be filed electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing System and served thefollowing via email:
April Tabor
Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm H-113
Washington, DC 20580
ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov
The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm H-110
Washington, DC 20580
I also certify that I caused the forgoing document to be served via email to:
James H. Weingarten (jweingarten@ftc.gov)
James Abell (jabell@ftc.gov)
Cem Akleman (cakleman@ftc.gov)
Taylor Alexander (talexander@ftc.gov)
Peggy Bayer Femenella (pbayerfemenella@ftc.gov)
Michael T. Blevins (mblevins@ftc.gov)
Amanda L. Butler (abutler2@ftc.gov)
Nicole Callan (ncallan@ftc.gov)
Maria Cirincione (mcirincione@ftc.gov)
Kassandra DiPietro (kdipietro@ftc.gov)
Jennifer Fleury (jfleury@ftc.gov)
Michael A. Franchak (mfranchak@ftc.gov)
James Gossmann (jgossmann@ftc.gov)
Ethan Gurwitz (egurwitz@ftc.gov)
Meredith Levert (mlevert@ftc.gov)
Merrick Pastore (mpastore@ftc.gov)
Stephen Santulli (ssantulli@ftc.gov)
Edmund Saw (esaw@ftc.gov)
U.S. Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20580
Telephone: (202) 326-3570
Counsel Supporting the Complaint36

PUBLIC

Steven C. Sunshine (steve.sunshine@skadden.com)
Julia K. York (julia.york@skadden.com)
Jessica R. Watters (jessica.watters@skadden.com)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 271-7860
Maria A. Raptis (maria.raptis@skadden.com)
Michael J. Sheerin (michael.sheerin@skadden.com)
Evan R. Kreiner (evan.kreiner@skadden.com
Andrew D. Kabbes (andrew.kabbes@skadden.com)
Bradley J. Pierson (bradley.pierson@skadden.com)
Matthew M. Martino (matthew.martino@skadden.com)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-2425
Counsel for Activision-Blizzard, Inc.
/s/ Beth Wilkinson
Beth Wilkinson
Counsel for Microsoft Corp.

37