Next Friday @JusticeATR will be at the Fourth Circuit in support of door maker @stevesdoors which is defending its trial win against @JELDWEN, a rare private merger challenge win

a late friday afternoon pre holiday weekend antitrust thread

In supporting Steves, DOJ says its own decision not to challenge a merger doesn’t preclude others from trying. That logic runs counter to its arguments against a group of states challenging @sprint @TMobile

Steves sued Jeld Wen several years ago saying its 2012 purchase of Craftmaster was anticompetitive and allowed Jeld Wen to use its market power to stop supplying a key part it needs to make doors

DOJ reviewed the Craftmaster deal, finding no issue. As part of its support for Steves DOJ said its "decision not to challenge a particular transaction is not confirmation that the transaction is competitively neutral or procompetitive."

With T-mobile DOJ argued repeatedly that its own settlement should be the final word, and the states interest in the T-mobile deal "does not justify their attempt to substitute their judgment for the nationwide perspective of the United States"

Should DOJ's decision not to challenge a deal require less deference than its decision to challenge and settle?