AT&T’s lead attorney strongly disputed what he called “preposterous” government allegations in his opening arguments.
WASHINGTON — The biggest U.S. antitrust case of this century kicked into high gear Thursday as a government lawyer warned that AT&T wants to buy media giant Time Warner to “weaponize” its must-have content — a move that would raise prices for consumers and hinder innovation.
“Time Warner would be a weapon for AT&T because AT&T’s competitors need Time Warner’s programming,” Justice Department lawyer Craig Conrath said in opening arguments in the government’s lawsuit to halt the planned $85 billion deal.
AT&T’s added leverage over pay-TV competitors to withhold content from some of the most valuable assets in entertainment — including HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT and Warner Bros., Hollywood’s largest TV and film studio — would cause prices to rise by more than $400 million a year for Americans, Conrath said.
AT&T also would be able to use the leverage to hinder the growth of online competitors, such as Google’s YouTube TV and Dish Network’s Sling TV, Conrath said as the antitrust showdown began in a Washington, D.C., courtroom after two days of sparring over evidence.
Most Read Business Stories
- Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system | Times Watchdog
- Boeing has 737 MAX software fix ready for airlines as DOT launches new scrutiny of entire FAA certification process
- Belltown penthouse is region’s priciest condo sale ever — and new owners won't even live there
- Amazon finds an alternative workforce through Northwest Center, a Seattle nonprofit helping people with disabilities
- Boeing defends 737 MAX's cockpit add-ons, begins new pilot information sessions
The outcome of the closely watched case, to be decided by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon after an estimated six- to eight-week trial, will have major ramifications for Hollywood and the rapidly evolving television industry.
AT&T’s lead attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, strongly disputed what he called “preposterous” government allegations in his opening arguments, saying consumer prices would go down, not up, because of cost efficiencies and higher advertising revenue generated by combining the telecommunications giant’s subscriber information with new data about viewers of Time Warner programming.
Online rivals such as Google and Amazon have “radically transformed” the media industry, and AT&T is trying to bulk up to compete, Petrocelli said. The Justice Department’s case doesn’t recognize that, he said.
“The government is pretending we’re trying this case back in the 1980s or ’90s,” he said.
Even though AT&T doesn’t believe there will be a consumer price increase, Peterocelli said the government’s $400 million estimate amounted to just 45 cents a month for each of the nation’s 90 million pay-TV subscribers. He spent a chunk of his opening argument ripping the calculations by University of California at Berkeley economist Carl Shapiro.
Petrocelli also tried to dismiss the government’s argument that AT&T’s DirecTV would stand to gain customers who would ditch competitors’ services if AT&T withholds Time Warner content.
“You know how hard it is to cancel your pay-TV service?” he said, adding that customers have to call their provider and then ‘stay home’ to wait for a new installation. “It’s a big pain.”
Conrath acknowledged the changing media landscape but said traditional providers still dominate the market. The largest of them is AT&T, which purchased DirecTV three years ago. The company now has more than 25 million customer homes. AT&T also has more than 100 million customers for mobile service, an increasingly vital market as younger Americans prefer to watch programming on their phones.
Conrath said the threat from innovative new rivals is fueling AT&T’s desire to buy Time Warner, but not so it could innovate. AT&T is desperate to keep its existing customers as new services try to lure them away.
“They’re coming right for AT&T’s cash cow, but these innovators need Time Warner’s content,” Conrath said. “Buying Time Warner would give AT&T a weapon to slow down innovation and protect AT&T’s cash cow.”
It was one of several times Conrath used the words “weapon” or “weaponize” in his 45-minute opening argument.
AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson and Time Warner Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes, both expected to testify during the trial, watched from seats in a packed federal courtroom. The crowd spilled into an adjacent overflow courtroom supplied with an audio feed of the arguments.
Petrocelli, a high-powered Los Angeles lawyer, and the rest of AT&T’s large legal team sat amid boxes of files and a wheeled cart stacked with two dozen thick binders holding thousands of pages of documents.
Leon, a no-nonsense veteran judge appointed to the bench in 2002 by Republican President George W. Bush, warned both sides that he did not want the case tried in public and suggested those who talked to the media about the case outside the courtroom could be held in contempt.
Leon is familiar with big media antitrust cases, having approved the Justice Department’s deal to impose conditions on Comcast’s 2011 acquisition of media giant NBCUniversal. But this is his first antitrust case.