SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
merger
Top Rail Unions Denounce Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern Megamerger as 'De Facto Monopoly'
"For rail customers, it will be a choice between ‘Hell or the highway,’” said Mark Wallace, the national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
Dec 17, 2025
Two of America's largest railway workers unions have come out against the $85 billion merger of two major railroad conglomerates, warning that it will harm competition and worker safety.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED) represent more than half of the employees at the Union Pacific Railroad and the Norfolk Southern Corporation, which it plans to acquire.
The US Surface Transportation Board (STB) is expected to receive a formal proposal from the two companies on Friday. President Donald Trump said in September that the deal "sounds good" to him.
If approved, it would allow the two firms to merge into the largest railroad company in US history, controlling more than 50,000 miles of track across 43 states. According to the Associated Press, such a railroad would likely control over 40% of the nation's freight.
The unions warned on Wednesday that the deal would create a "de facto monopoly" in large swaths of the country.
“We believe this transcontinental railroad will make shipping by rail less attractive as the merged carrier passes off rail lines that serve small towns, factories, and farms to short line railroads while running miles-long slow-moving trains on the main line," said BLET national president Mark Wallace. "For rail customers, it will be a choice between ‘Hell or the highway.’”
Loosened merger regulations by Congress have allowed railway companies to consolidate over the past 40 years. As the unions point out, in 1980 there were roughly 40 different Class 1 railroads in the US, whereas in 2025 they have combined into just six entities.
An October analysis by the American Economic Liberties Project, which warned against the Norfolk Southern-Union Pacific merger, noted that as a result of this consolidation, "shippers reported a deterioration in service, fewer options with higher prices... while workers lost jobs and those who didn’t face strenuous working conditions."
While the unions credited Norfolk Southern’s spending on new safety measures following 2023’s catastrophic derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, they said that Union Pacific “continues to cut corners and oppose needed reforms.”
During the Biden administration, federal regulators found that Union Pacific made a concerted effort to undermine government safety assessments, including coaching employees on how to respond to questions from the Federal Railroad Administration and threatening them with discipline if they did not give the company's preferred responses.
The merger has received backing from SMART-TD, the nation's largest railroad union, which cited promises from Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena not to lay off workers as a result of the acquisition.
But BLET and BMWED say these promises are hollow and that the proposal given to unions still allows the company to have the ultimate say over which workers are protected and provides no guarantees for employees against being transferred to jobs hundreds of miles away or from having their lines sold to short line railroads that pay less.
“We don’t believe anything Vena says about how workers would be treated in the Supersized Union Pacific,” said Tony Cardwell, president of the BMWED. “The agreements reached with some other unions related to job protections post-merger have loopholes big enough to traverse freight trains through. We refuse to accept the same terms in return for our unions’ support for the merger.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ben & Jerry's Co-Founder Steps Down in Protest of Corporate Owner's Attempts to 'Silence' Duo's Gaza Activism
"Ben & Jerry's has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power," said co-founder Jerry Greenfield.
Sep 17, 2025
Jerry Greenfield, the lifelong political activist and co-founder of the ice cream brand Ben & Jerry's, is quitting the company in protest against what he says are efforts by parent company Unilever to "silence" his advocacy for progressive causes, particularly for Palestinians amid Israel's genocidal war in Gaza.
"I can no longer, in good conscience, and after 47 years, remain an employee of Ben & Jerry's," Greenfield said in a statement posted Tuesday by his longtime partner Ben Cohen. "This is one of the hardest and most painful decisions I've ever made."
The Vermont-based ice cream company was acquired by Unilever, a British conglomerate, in 2000, at which time Greenfield says the company "guaranteed" him and his partner the "independence to pursue our values." Though the pair no longer had a financial stake in the company, which they founded in 1978, they remained on as board members and brand ambassadors.
"For more than twenty years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry's stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice, and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world," Greenfield said. "That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever, one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company's governance structure in perpetuity."
The relationship between Ben & Jerry's and its parent company began to fracture as Cohen and Greenfield became increasingly outspoken advocates against Israel's human rights abuses in Palestine.
In 2021, the duo announced that it would stop selling its ice cream in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in protest of Israel's occupation of those territories, which is widely recognized as illegal under international law. Several US states with laws punishing boycotts of Israel began to pull their investments in Unilever, which rushed to reaffirm that it was “firmly committed” to Israel.
In order to bypass the pair's boycott, Unilever sold the Israeli portion of Ben & Jerry's to a distributor in the country, which promptly resumed distribution in the Occupied Territories. The duo launched a lawsuit against their parent company in hopes of stopping the deal.
The rift would intensify further after October 7, 2023, when, following Hamas' attack against Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government responded with a crushing military onslaught against the Gaza Strip that has now resulted in at least 220,000 casualties according to one former Israeli general.
Ben & Jerry's would file another lawsuit in 2024 alleging that Unilever, on several occasions, used threats and intimidation to stop them from speaking out on the conflict, which they referred to as a "genocide."
They said Unilever threatened to dismantle the company's board if it issued statements calling for "peace" and a "ceasefire," imposed restrictions on their statements in support of pro-Palestine student demonstrators, and stopped them from donating company funds to human rights organizations. Ben & Jerry's would later claim that Unilever fired its CEO, David Stever in March 2025 in retaliation for the brand's activism.
This past May, Cohen was arrested, along with six others, for disrupting a US Senate hearing in protest of Washington's continued sale of weapons to Israel, which at that point had begun outlining plans to fully remove Palestinians from Gaza with support from President Donald Trump.
Unilever distanced itself from Cohen's actions, saying they were "on his own as an individual and not on behalf of Ben & Jerry's or Unilever."
Greenfield's departure comes as Unilever plans to fold Ben & Jerry's into a new entity known as the Magnum Ice Cream Company, which is set to be listed on the stock market in November. In response to the merger, Ben & Jerry's called for its brand to be "freed" from the conglomerate.
"They're ripping the heart out of Ben & Jerry's," Cohen said last week while brandishing a picket sign. "All we're asking is for them to sell the company to a group of people who support the values of Ben & Jerry's."
Magnum rejected this request, saying, "Ben & Jerry’s is a proud part of the Magnum Ice Cream Company and is not for sale."
"It's profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence, the very basis of our sale to Unilever, is gone," Greenfield said in his resignation note. "And it's happening at a time when our country's current administration is attacking civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ community."
"Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important," he continued, "and yet Ben & Jerry's has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power. It's easy to stand up and speak out when there's nothing at risk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Gives Monopolist UnitedHealth a Green Light to Swallow Yet Another Competitor
"As a result, Big Medicine will profit at the expense of vulnerable hospice patients, some of whom will pay with their lives, and the workers who care for them."
Aug 08, 2025
The Trump Justice Department on Thursday paved the way for yet another corporate merger, this time settling a Biden-era legal challenge that aimed to block UnitedHealth Group from adding the home health and hospice care provider Amedisys to its eye-popping list of subsidiaries.
The DOJ's Antitrust Division, which is under siege by lobbyists connected to the White House, said the settlement would require UnitedHealth and Amedisys to "divest 164 home health and hospice locations across 19 states." The deal, which must be approved by a judge, would also require Amedisys to "pay a $1.1 million civil penalty to the United States for falsely certifying that it had provided 'true, correct, and complete' responses under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976."
The settlement was announced on the same day that Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) launched an investigation into UnitedHealth, specifically probing the company's alleged practice of incentivizing nursing homes to slash patient care costs.
Warren was among those who criticized the UnitedHealth-Amedisys settlement, writing on social media that she "sounded the alarm about UnitedHealth's attempt to purchase this home health giant years ago."
"This is another half-baked merger settlement by the Trump DOJ—this time at the expense of the most vulnerable," Warren added. "The public deserves to know if this deal is based on political favors."
"It claims to divest home health and hospice care providers in overlapping markets but, in actuality, cedes them to similarly conflicted buyers, including a highly leveraged private equity firm."
The settlement came as the Trump Justice Department is under growing scrutiny for terminating or sidelining top antitrust officials and acquiescing to lobbyists fighting DOJ merger lawsuits.
Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the Justice Department dropped an antitrust case against American Express Global Business Travel, a company that has paid Ballard Partners—Attorney General Pam Bondi's former lobbying firm—hundreds of thousands of dollars this year to pressure the DOJ on antitrust matters.
Ballard has also been paid big money this year by UnitedHealth, far and away the most powerful healthcare company in the U.S. According to a recent analysis by the Center for Health and Democracy, UnitedHealth currently has around 2,700 subsidiaries, giving it a foothold in virtually every aspect of the U.S. healthcare system.
The legal challenge against UnitedHealth's proposed $3.3 billion acquisition of Amedisys was brought in November 2024 by the Biden Justice Department alongside the attorneys general of Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, each of whom backed the Trump DOJ's settlement.
Upon announcing the challenge, then-Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter—the head of the Biden DOJ's Antitrust Division—warned that "unless this $3.3 billion transaction is stopped, UnitedHealth Group will further extend its grip to home health and hospice care, threatening seniors, their families, and nurses."
Emma Freer, senior policy analyst for healthcare at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement Thursday that "the DOJ was right to challenge this deal, which would eliminate head-to-head competition that lowers costs, improves care quality, and betters working conditions for nurses and other caregivers."
"This settlement abandons that goal and caves to UnitedHealth Group, one of the most dangerous monopolists in American healthcare," said Freer. "It claims to divest home health and hospice care providers in overlapping markets but, in actuality, cedes them to similarly conflicted buyers, including a highly leveraged private equity firm."
"As a result," Freer added, "Big Medicine will profit at the expense of vulnerable hospice patients, some of whom will pay with their lives, and the workers who care for them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Doubt CBS Claim That Finances—Not Politics—Are Behind 'Late Show' Cancellation
The network announced the cancellation three days after host Stephen Colbert lambasted its parent company for a $16 million legal settlement with President Donald Trump.
Jul 18, 2025
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren was among those calling into question the official story behind CBS' cancellation of "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" on Thursday—suggesting that the decision to end the show's 32-year run wasn't driven by finances but by "political reasons."
The announcement from CBS executives came just three days after Colbert spoke out on his show about a recent $16 million settlement reached by CBS parent company Paramount over an interview that "60 Minutes" aired with former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election, in which Harris ran against President Donald Trump.
Colbert had told his audience that the settlement appeared to be a "big fat bribe" to end a "nuisance lawsuit."
"This all comes as Paramount's owners are trying to the get the Trump administration to approve the sale of our network to a new owner," said Colbert, referring to a pending $8.4 billion merger with the entertainment company Skydance—whose billionaire founder, David Ellison, has been spotted with Trump in recent months.
Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday that the public "deserves to know if [Colbert's] show was canceled for political reasons."
Trump's lawsuit against Paramount claimed the Harris interview was deceptively edited and amounted to "partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference," allegations that legal experts and First Amendment scholars denounced as "ridiculous" and "dangerous."
After the settlement was announced earlier this month, with Paramount pledging to release transcripts of future "60 Minutes" interviews with presidential candidates, one press freedom group condemned the company for "capitulating" to the president's demands.
CBS executives appeared to preemptively respond to expected allegations that they were canceling Colbert's show due to his criticism of the settlement—and his frequent rebukes of the president—saying the decision, effective in May 2026, was "purely a financial" one.
"It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content, or other matters happening at Paramount," they said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) expressed doubt that the end of Colbert's show, days after he spoke out against his parent company's legal decision, was "a coincidence."
Media critics joined lawmakers including Sanders and Warren in expressing skepticism.
"'The Late Show' isn't dying because people stopped watching late-night TV," wrote Parker Molloy at The New Republic. "It's being murdered because Stephen Colbert spent the last decade being one of Trump's most persistent critics on network television, and the billionaires about to take over CBS need Trump's approval for their merger."
Anonymous "Late Show" staffers also told The Independent they believed the cancellation of the show was "part and parcel of the Trump shakedown settlement."
Political scientist Norman Ornstein called the impending end of "The Late Show," considering the surrounding circumstances, "a terrible sign for democracy."
"There's only one reason to do this, and we know what it is," said Ornstein. "The same reason that this disgraceful excuse for a network succumbed to blackmail from Trump over the '60 Minutes' interview."
Trump, whose Federal Communications Commission is still deciding on approval of the merger, weighed in on Friday regarding the show's cancellation, saying in a social media post, "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired," and criticizing other late-night comedians who have taken aim at him.
As Status News reported after the Paramount settlement was announced, speculation has increased that comedian Jon Stewart, who co-hosts "The Daily Show"—where Colbert spent several years—could also "soon be silenced" after publicly criticizing the settlement. That show airs on Comedy Central, which is owned by the CBS parent company.
"Inside 'The Daily Show,' I'm told staffers have taken pride that Stewart showed once again he is willing to stand up to powerful interests, even if it potentially risks his future employment," wrote Oliver Darcy. "And while they may not yet know it, inside certain power circles, there is an open question: How much longer will Stewart have this platform?"
MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes said Friday that it is not "an overstatement to say that the test of a free society is whether or not comedians can make fun of the country's leader on TV without repurcussions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Kroger Posts Massive Profits Amid Price Gouging Outcry and Merger Push
Kroger executives have "proven they'll take advantage of their customers to bolster their profits," said watchdog Accountable.US.
Sep 12, 2024
Grocery giant Kroger's practice of price gouging in order to pass on its "inflation to consumers," as one executive recently said, has paid off for the $37 billion company, according to its quarterly earnings posted on Thursday.
The company, which is facing a legal challenge from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over its proposed acquisition of rival store Albertsons, reported that it earned $466 million in the second quarter of 2024, with year-to-date earnings of $1.4 billion—nearly double the amount it earned last year.
The government watchdog Accountable.US accused Kroger of profiting off "rising costs" for families across the United States—ones that are caused not by inflation but by "greedflation": the practice of purposely keeping prices high to increase profits, even though higher labor costs and supply chain woes from the coronavirus pandemic era have subsided.
"Should consumers pay the price for corporate greed?" said the group.
The Biden administration is working to block Kroger's proposed merger with Albertsons, which the FTC says would result in "a straight-up monopoly" in some communities where Albertsons stores would likely close.
The FTC has raised concerns both about how the merger would raise prices at stores whose owners already engage in price gouging and would no longer have to compete with Albertsons, and about likely job losses for many employees. In two counties in Southern California, for example, 115 out of 159 Albertsons stores are located within two miles of a Kroger, raising concerns among unionized workers that their stores could be seen as "redundant" after the potential merger.
"Corporate price gouging has cost consumers enough, yet Kroger wants to make matters worse by cornering the market to maximize profits."
Accountable.US said Thursday that the merger could cost $334 million in wages for nearly 1 million grocery workers.
"The Biden-Harris administration is putting American families first by challenging the ill-advised merger between Kroger and Albertsons," said Liz Zelick, director of the group's Economic Security and Corporate Power Program. "Corporate price gouging has cost consumers enough, yet Kroger wants to make matters worse by cornering the market to maximize profits. Make no mistake: If the merger goes through, it will leave many families worse off with higher prices and fewer store locations."
Late last month, Kroger's senior director of pricing, Andy Groff, told an FTC attorney during questioning that the grocery chain had raised the prices of milk and eggs above the rate of inflation.
The company has also used "dynamic pricing" in some of its stores for years—changing prices throughout the day—and has partnered with an artificial intelligence company to develop software that could tailor the cost of products to individual shoppers by collecting their personal data.
While reporting a massive financial windfall, said Accountable, Kroger executives have "proven they'll take advantage of their customers to bolster their profits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Last Thing the Railway Industry Needs Is Another Giant Merger
The only win if Canadian Pacific acquires Kansas City Southern is for freight rail's hedge fund investors, who are squeezing operating cash out of these railroads at the expense of workers, community safety, and the overall economy.
Apr 07, 2023
On March 15th, the Surface Transportation Board (STB)—the federal agency that regulates the U.S. freight rail industry—gave final approval to the acquisition of Kansas City Southern by Canadian Pacific. Approving this merger between America's sixth- and seventh-largest railroads was a dire mistake, which will have enormous economic and social costs that resound for decades.
In a nation committed to a competitive market, in a sector that's already as consolidated as American freight rail, it's important to evaluate mergers very carefully, because once big companies absorb smaller ones, it becomes impossible to pull them apart again. And as economics researcher Eric Peinert of the American Economic Liberties Project puts it, "Nothing in the history of rail consolidation suggests this particular merger is a good idea."
Allowing these two railroads to merge is likely to reduce competition in the industry, leading to higher shipping prices, reduced service, and job cuts. It will impair the ability of small businesses to operate. It will lead to increased safety risks and have environmental impacts on the communities where rail traffic will increase. And as cost-cutting pressure from railroads' predatory hedge fund investors continues to mount, it will likely contribute to even more aggressive cuts in service than we have seen over the past five years.
The STB knew all that. They got 2,000 public comments about the merger, from industry experts, researchers, lawmakers, and the general public—hundreds of them laying out reasons why it shouldn't get the green light. On behalf of people across America, U.S. Senators and Representatives weighed in with their concerns, which the STB ignored.
"Cost-cutting demanded by the industry's hedge-fund investors—while generating a cash windfall for them personally—has resulted in safety compromises that risk the lives of employees and the well-being of the densely settled communities freight railroads pass through..."
The most obvious risks are to the competitive marketplace, with both rail customers and rail workers paying the biggest price. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for the merger application to be denied outright on antimonopoly grounds. As Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) put it, as America's Class I freight railroads have dwindled from 33 to just seven, "lack of competition has allowed railroads to gut capacity, capture and extort businesses, fire thousands of workers, and threaten the integrity of America's freight transport network and supply chains – all while extracting monopoly profits."
For American businesses, precision scheduled railroading (PSR), the approach these giant railroads are taking to providing as little service as they can get away with and doing it as cheaply as possible, has meant less frequent, less reliable, and more expensive shipping options. And for the freight rail workforce, it's meant job cuts of 28% across the industry with onerous contract terms and more dangerous working conditions for those who remain.
In the wake of the hazardous Norfolk Southern derailment at East Palestine, Ohio and a string of other high-profile derailments earlier this year, industry-watchers of all stripes have noted that cost-cutting demanded by the industry's hedge-fund investors—while generating a cash windfall for them personally—has resulted in safety compromises that risk the lives of employees and the well-being of the densely settled communities freight railroads pass through, like the Chicago suburbs.
According to employees, extreme schedule pressures under PSR push workers to their physical limits, leaving them with as little as 60 seconds to conduct railcar safety inspections. And due to investor pressure to save money by running fewer, longer trains, it's more and more frequent to see trains as long (150 cars) as the one that derailed in Ohio. Sarah Feinberg, former head of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), says that even trains as short as 80 cars can pose size risks.
The American Economic Liberties Project describes the hyper-consolidated U.S. freight rail giants as operating under a "financially extractive business model," which makes but money for the railroads' hedge fund investors at great cost to the public welfare. And Peinert says yet another merger will make things even worse. "This deal sets the stage for future disasters like East Palestine, and will likely lead to even further railroad staffing cuts, even higher cargo loads, and other profit-driven safety shortcuts."
Despite the recent statement by STB chair Martin Oberman that this merger "will be an improvement for all citizens in terms of safety and the environment," their own environmental impact study found that the opposite would be the case in numerous communities along busy rail routes: the merger will increase hazardous cargo transportation along 141 of the 178 rail segments, totaling 5,800 miles of track in 16 states. And even basic public services like Metra passenger rail service—a critical economic engine for the 10-million-population three-state Chicago metro area, which operates on Canadian Pacific tracks, competing with freight services—are at risk. Along some of those track segments, freight traffic is projected to triple, with much of the new cargo slated to include hazardous materials.
In response to the market consolidation concerns raised by merger opponents, the STB has imposed some conditions. They will require that interchanges within other railroads be kept open, that a process be provided for challenging rate increases, and that the companies provide data so the STB can monitor compliance. But as Sen. Warren noted, these measures are insufficient. That's especially true given that there's already evidence that Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern may have been violating antitrust law against collusion, by sitting down together at a luxury hotel in Florida to plan the future of the company in early February, even before the merger was approved.
Cutting routes, service, and workers may be good for profits, but it's bad for American competitiveness, for workers, for industry, and for public safety and quality of life. The only win here is for freight rail's hedge fund investors, who are squeezing operating cash out of these railroads—cash they used to use to pay employees, fund service, and finance safety improvements—and taking it to the bank.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Last Thing We Need': Critics Decry US Government's OK of $31 Billion Railroad Merger
"The East Palestine disaster raised significant questions about rail safety," Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in response to the approval of Canadian Pacific's acquisition of Kansas City Southern. "Allowing this merger is a mistake."
Mar 15, 2023
U.S. federal regulators on Wednesday approved the first major railroad merger in more than two decades, a move that follows the East Palestine rail disaster and that critics warned would reduce competition, raise prices, cost jobs, and threaten safety.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) approved Canadian Pacific Railway Limited's proposed $31 billion acquisition of Kansas City Southern Railway Company, a merger that will create a single railroad linking Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The agency said the merger will take roughly 64,000 truckloads off the road and add more than 800 union jobs.
"The decision includes an unprecedented seven-year oversight period and contains many conditions designed to mitigate environmental impacts, preserve competition, protect railroad workers, and promote efficient passenger rail," STB said, adding that it "also anticipates the merger will result in improvements in safety and the reduction of carbon emissions."
"Shame on STB for disregarding both the administration and the rail workers who know all too well that corporate consolidation leads to a more dangerous rail industry."
However, opponents of the deal pointed to the East Palestine, Ohio disaster and other recent railroad accidents, which they said underscored the need for a more cautious approach to consolidation.
"The merger brings the total number of Class 1 railroads to six, down from over 100 just a few decades ago," the progressive news site More Perfect Union noted on Twitter. "Corporate consolidation in the railroad industry compromises safety and risks lives by prioritizing profits and cutting corners to reduce costs."
"Despite concerns from small towns and suburban Chicago cities, the STB ruled, based on data provided by industry, that the only community and environmental impacts of the merger would be an increase in noise," More Perfect Union continued.
"The Biden administration has taken a strong antitrust stance by blocking the $3.8 billion JetBlue-Spirit merger and urging the STB to do the same for Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern (CP-KCS), citing the need to promote competition in the railroad industry," the outlet said.
"Shame on STB for disregarding both the administration and the rail workers who know all too well that corporate consolidation leads to a more dangerous rail industry," More Perfect Union added. "The last thing we need is another merger right now."
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—who earlier this month wrote to STB Chair Martin Oberman asking the agency to reject the merger—similarly tweeted that "we don't need another rail merger that'll crush competition, reduce safety, increase prices, and destroy jobs."
U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who represents some Chicago suburbs through which the new international railway will run, wrote on Twitter Tuesday that "even before the disaster in Ohio, I had been warning about the threats to communities in my district that would come from a potential CP-KCS merger."
Itasca, Illinois Administrator Carie Anne Ergo—who chairs the Stop CPKCS Coalition—told The Washington Post that "the tragedy in Ohio is an illustration of what we've been talking about can happen."
"If what happened in East Palestine happened here in Itasca, the entire community would need to evacuate," she added. "It's terrifying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Applaud as FTC Sues to Stop Microsoft-Activision Mega-Merger
Biden's FTC, said one consumer campaigner, "is showing, once again, that it is serious about enforcing the law, reversing corporate concentration, and taking on the tough cases."
Dec 08, 2022
Consumer advocates cheered a lawsuit filed Thursday by the Biden administration in a bid to block the proposed merger of two of the world's leading video game companies, Microsoft and Activision Blizzard--a $69 billion deal the Federal Trade Commission argued would "harm competition" in the nearly $200 billion gaming industry.
"Today's action is of incredible importance in ensuring fair and open competition in gaming and across the larger digital economy."
"The Federal Trade Commission is seeking to block technology giant Microsoft Corp. from acquiring leading video game developer Activision Blizzard, Inc. and its blockbuster gaming franchises such as Call of Duty, alleging that the $69 billion deal, Microsoft's largest ever and the largest-ever in the video gaming industry, would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business," the FTC said in a statement.
Reacting to the lawsuit, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted, "Corporate monopolies have had free rein to hike prices and harm workers, but now the Biden administration is committed to promoting competition."
Microsoft announced in January that it would acquire Activision Blizzard--whose other popular titles include the World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch franchises--for $68.7 billion. Activision Blizzard has been plagued by multiple allegations of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, sexual battery, and labor violations.
Politico reports:
The FTC voted, 3-1 to issue the complaint, with all three Democrats--Lina Khan, Alvaro Bedoya, and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter--supporting the move, and Republican Christine S. Wilson voting no...
The lawsuit is the FTC's biggest move yet under Chair Lina Khan to rein in the power of the world's largest technology companies. It is also a major black mark for Microsoft, which has positioned itself as a white knight of sorts on antitrust issues in the tech sector after going through its own grueling regulatory antitrust battles around the world more than two decades ago.
Microsoft president Brad Smith responded to the suit by insisting that "we continue to believe that our deal to acquire Activision Blizzard will expand competition and create more opportunities for gamers and game developers."
However, Sarah Miller, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, called the proposed merger "unlawful" and said it "will undermine the vitality of an important sector of the American economy and consolidate the video game industry into a small group of firms who control walled gardens of content, data, and advertising."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly group, warned that "if Microsoft acquired Activision, it could use Activision's valuable portfolio of games as a competitive weapon, withholding titles from rival consoles or offering lower quality versions of them, to give its own Xbox and cloud-gaming service a leg-up."
"The FTC recognized this threat of unfair competition and made the right choice, once again showing it takes vertical mergers seriously," Vaheesan added. "If giants like Microsoft want to expand, they should invest in their own capacity and hire more workers, instead of snapping up firms in adjacent markets. We hope the court sees the merits in the FTC's case and stops this harmful consolidation."
Matt Kent, competition policy advocate for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "today's action is of incredible importance in ensuring fair and open competition in gaming and across the larger digital economy. The FTC is showing, once again, that it is serious about enforcing the law, reversing corporate concentration, and taking on the tough cases."
"The proposed deal raises too many red flags to proceed, especially considering that Microsoft is already operating in several concentrated sectors of the economy including consumer electronics, cloud computing, software development, hardware development, internet search, social networking, virtual reality, and video gaming," Kent continued.
"This deal should be stopped," he added. "If allowed to purchase a key video game developer like Activision, Microsoft would be positioned to dominate gaming into the future and unfairly disadvantage other market participants."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'300,000 and Counting': Diverse Coalition Condemns Mega Cable Merger
Attempt by Charter Communications to purchase Time Warner Cable and Bright House has been met with fierce opposition, as a coalition of public interest groups delivers 300,000 comments to the FCC
Feb 18, 2016
As Charter Communications, the fourth largest cable company in the U.S. continues to pursue its $80 billion takeover of fellow cable giants Time Warner Cable and Bright House, on Thursday, a coalition of media justice, Internet rights, and public interest groups delivered to the FCC over 300,000 comments in opposition to the merger.
If the merger succeeds, the new entity would be second in size only to Comcast and, together with Comcast, would control nearly two-thirds of the nation's highspeed internet subscriptions. Critics of such a scenario argue that this would give the media behemoths too much power in the already relatively noncompetitive broadband and cable markets and would disproportionately hurt poor communities and people of color.
"This merger should be rejected -- we need more options for affordable and open access to communications, not fewer." -- Michael Scurato, National Hispanic Media Coalition
Charter Communications is "already swimming in debt," writes Dana Floberg of Free Press in an op-ed at The Hill. If the merger goes through, it will take on $27 billion in new debt, saddling the new company "with a whopping $66 billion in debt," Floberg adds. Critics contend that this massive debt would be shouldered not by investors or the executives behind the merger but by individual cable customers. The debt will add up to about $1,142 per customer, says Michael Copps, a former commissioner and acting chairman of the FCC who now serves as an advisor to Free Press.
"Charter has told investors it would exercise its expanded market power to pay off massive merger-related debt, which means substantial price increases are likely," Free Press argues in its petition for the FCC to reject the merger. While costs are likely to increase to cover that debt, critics say that with such a large share of the market -- in many places, the new company would be the only option for broadband service -- the company would have little incentive to provide good, fast and efficient service to customers.
"The proposed Charter-Time Warner Cable merger represents the kind of noxious corporate takeover Demand Progress members and the public have continually spoken out against. It's a deal between powerful, entrenched interests that would lead to bigger profits for 'New Charter' and higher prices for customers while diminishing competition and consumer choice," says David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress.
Free Press also argues that the merger would exacerbate the digital divide -- further limiting internet access in impoverished communities.
"A merger between Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable is a bad deal for diverse communities in America," says Michael Scurato, vice president of policy at the National Hispanic Media Coalition. "Charter has not demonstrated that it is committed to hiring a workforce that reflects the communities they seek to serve, carrying culturally relevant programming for their diverse audience or fully participating in existing programs, like Lifeline, that could soon help bring communities of color online. This merger should be rejected -- we need more options for affordable and open access to communications, not fewer."
"Allowing a corporation like Charter to become one of the few gatekeepers to the Internet will undoubtedly harm how those voices are heard, if they're heard at all." -- Steven Renderos, Center for Media Justice
Critics also argue that one company holding such an enormous market share would inevitably stifle innovations in cable programming and streaming services. The New York Times writes that U.S. antitrust officials have been analyzing "whether bigger cable firms -- with strong bargaining power with programmers and fast-growing broadband Internet businesses -- could harm their newest threat: streaming video providers like Netflix and Hulu."
As Floberg explains, "With monopoly-style market power, it could raise prices on captive customers and protect its existing cable-TV model by thwarting competition from online video services. There's hardly any competition in the broadband market as it is. Many customers won't have the option to take their business elsewhere should Charter start hiking rates and abusing its gatekeeper power."
Another coalition of media and telecommunications businesses and labor and public interest groups, including Dish Network, Fairpoint Communications, and the Rural Broadband Association, among others, have formed to oppose the merger, and central to their opposition is the potential for the merger to threaten independent programming. The Stop Mega Cable coalition warns of the new company's power to "[f]orce independent and diverse voices to accept below-market terms, thus jeopardizing their viability."
Copps has noted that it is already difficult for independent programs and new, diverse voices to gain a foothold in a market controlled by only a handful of large cable companies. If only two corporations were to dominate two-thirds of the nation's access to cable TV, it would be that much more difficult for those voices to make their way to the national stage.
Such a merger also has the potential to inhibit the size and presence of independent voices online, notes Center for Media Justice senior campaign manager Steven Renderos. "The Internet has been a space for unique and diverse voices to be heard," argues Renderos. "Allowing a corporation like Charter to become one of the few gatekeepers to the Internet will undoubtedly harm how those voices are heard if they're heard at all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Insurance Giant's Proposed Merger Could Devastate Access to Health Care
Industry giant Anthem proposed Saturday to buy rival Cigna for $47 billion
Jun 20, 2015
One of the largest health insurance giants in the country, Anthem, on Saturday proposed a $47 billion merger with its competitor Cigna, part of an industry-wide merger bonanza that analysts warn could have a devastating impact on health care cost and access nationwide.
The public proposal comes as the top five U.S. insurance companies--UnitedHealth Group Inc., Anthem Inc., Aetna Inc., Cigna Corp. and Humana Inc.--race to consolidate in what Bloomberg recently called a "five-way dating drama" and the Wall Street Journal referred to as an "oligopoly wave."
In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission earlier this month, the American Association of Family Physicians expressed deep concerns "about the potential merger of any of the nation's largest health insurance companies and the impact such actions would have on access and affordability of health care for consumers across the nation."
"Bigger insurance companies mean increased leverage and unfair power over negotiating rates with hospitals and physicians," the organization continued. "More often than not, consolidation increases costs and reduces options for consumers and we believe this would hold true in the health insurance market."
Dave Jones, California's top insurance regulator, echoed these warnings in an interview this week with the L.A. Times: "Generally speaking, further consolidation in the health insurance industry is not a good thing for consumers, employers or medical providers. It means the potential for future price increases as a result of less competition."
A report (pdf) released last year by the Commonwealth Fund finds that the U.S. health care system is already the most expensive in the world yet delivers the worse care among 11 industrialized nations. Many are calling for a universal, publicly-funded health care system to replace the for-profit model behind this dismal performance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy