New York ends resistance to T-Mobile/Sprint merger

New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced her office will not pursue an appeal against the courts decision to approve the $26 billion T-Mobile US and Sprint merger.

While the other states involved in the lawsuit to prevent the combination of the two telcos are yet to formally make their position public, James was the primary driving force behind the legal opposition. Others might try to step up, but without one of the US’ fastest growing political forces at the helm, responses look relatively pitiful.

“After a thorough analysis, New York has decided not to move forward with an appeal in this case. Instead, we hope to work with all the parties to ensure that consumers get the best pricing and service possible, that networks are built out throughout our state, and that good-paying jobs are created here in New York.

“We are gratified that this process has yielded commitments from T-Mobile to create jobs in Rochester and engage in robust national diversity initiatives that will connect our communities with good jobs and technology. We are committed to continuing to fight for affordability and access for all of New York’s mobile customers.”

James’ opposition to the $26 billion merger first emerged in June 2019 when, alongside California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, support was raised for a multi-state lawsuit against the corporate transaction. James managed to convince 12 State Attorney Generals to oppose the deal, questioning whether it would be beneficial for the consumer and attempting to disprove that Dish would not be adequate as a fourth mobile operator.

In a 173-page opinion, Judge Victor Marrero effectively said the merger was a good idea as Sprint was not worthy of being called competition. The combined entity would be a much better representative, while Marrero believed Dish plans to scale rapidly were viable, even if few others do. His ruling effectively killed the resistance to the merger.

Although some will be disappointed the lawyers are giving up the fight, it might simply be a case of looking at the bigger picture. James has pointed to job creation promises in her state, though now the attention will turn to ensure these jobs are actually created. Back in October, Colorado and Mississippi both did the same; the legal opposition was dropped as agreements were forged with T-Mobile US and Dish to offer benefits to the states.

While there will be some benefits to the transaction, it is impossible to avoid the negatives. T-Mobile US and Sprint will be able to realise efficiencies to better compete with AT&T and Verizon, while Dish will offer more jobs. However, there will be a rationalisation project after the transaction leading to job losses in shared business functions (finance, legal etc.) and also in areas where the retail footprint overlaps. Redundancies are unavoidable.

The question which remains is who will get the best slice of the benefits?

Colorado agreed to drop the lawsuit against the merger if Dish was to create 2,000 jobs in the statey and will also keep its corporate HQ in the city of Littleton for at least seven years. The Attorney General has also negotiated an accelerated 5G deployment timeline with T-Mobile US in exchange. Over in Mississippi, former-Attorney General Jim Hood also negotiated an accelerated 5G deployment plan and also a ceiling on tariffs for consumers for a five-year period.

These were the only two states to drop out prior to the conclusion of the lawsuit, though now the lobbying for attention can begin as T-Mobile/Sprint and Dish are wooed by each of the states for their own benefit. James has said the deal offers new jobs to citizens in Rochester, New York, though with other states considering more legal action, T-Mobile US and Dish might have to hit the negotiating table elsewhere.

In California, Attorney General Becerra is considering his options, while Ken Paxton, the Attorney General for Texas, has not stated whether he will pursue an appeal to the decision. These might not be the catalyst for opposition that Letitia James is, but they will certainly be able to cause a problem. T-Mobile US, Sprint and Dish executives want this deal done, are will probably be willing to negotiate some attractive deals.

Huawei hits out at Verizon with Texas patent lawsuit

Huawei has announced it has filed a patent lawsuit against Verizon with the District Courts of both East and Western Texas districts, covering several applications in its fixed line business unit.

Although Huawei is not a supplier to Verizon, the Chinese firm is claiming several products in the wireless business make use of patented technologies which are protected by 12 Huawei patents. Verizon is yet to make comment on the lawsuit, though Huawei claims there have been various meetings between the two parties to discuss this dispute over the last 12 months.

“For years now we have successfully negotiated patent license agreements with many companies,” said Huawei’s chief legal officer Song Liuping. “Unfortunately, when no agreement can be reached, we have no choice but to seek a legal remedy.

“This is the common practice in the industry. Huawei is simply asking that Verizon respect Huawei’s investment in research and development by either paying for the use of our patents or refraining from using them in its products and services.”

This lawsuit is somewhat of a no-lose situation for Huawei. If it wins the lawsuit, it could be the focal point of a PR campaign to fight back against Chinese-aggression, but a loss could also be spun due to the anti-China rhetoric.

While details are thin on the ground, this is not the first time this saga has emerged. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported Huawei had written to Verizon about this very matter, demanding payments which could have exceeded $1 billion. Song has not confirmed how much Huawei is asking for, though the lawyer did suggest the two companies had met several times to discuss the matter.

And while this is an interesting development, the Huawei legal team are of course no strangers to the US legal system.

On the offensive, Huawei has filed lawsuits against the White House claiming the ban on working with US suppliers is unconstitutional, while it has also questioned the legality of the FCC’s demands on rural suppliers. The FCC has previously stated any telco with Huawei equipment in the network cannot access federal subsidies for rural connectivity.

Sitting on the other side of the aisle, a trial date has been set in March 2020 to decide whether Huawei had stolen trade secrets from T-Mobile US concerning a phone testing robot called Tappy. It was also accused of stealing patents from Portuguese inventor Rui Pedro Oliveira.

Cox piracy ruling could open Pandora’s Box for US telcos

Cox Communications has found itself on the wrong wide of a $1 billion cheque after a court ruled it did not do enough to prevent illegal download of content across its network.

The telco of course plans to appeal the case, though the lawsuit suggested the team prioritised profits over legal obligations to prevent the illegal distribution of copyright protected content. The lawsuit brought to the courts by 53 music companies focused on 10,017 recordings and compositions. For each case, Cox Communications is liable to pay just over $99,000 to the copyright owner.

“The judgement is unwarranted, unjust and an egregious amount,” Cox said in a statement. “We plan to appeal the case and vigorously defend ourselves.

“We provide customers with a powerful tool that connects to a world full of content and information. Unfortunately, some customers have chosen to use that connection for wrongful activity. We don’t condone it, we educate on it and we do our best to help curb it, but we shouldn’t be held responsible for the bad actions of others.”

Cox executives will of course not be happy with the outcome, but there will be numerous other parties across the US who might be fretting also. In short, this case sets precedent and in ruling Cox is financially liable for copyright infringement, the door has been opened to take other communication service providers to court.

When you consider how litigious the US is as a society, it would not be too surprising to see a broad range of lawsuit, from the different segments of the content world, filed against the telcos.

In this case, Cox Communications was found to be at fault because it did not do enough to prevent copyright infringement through the communications service it provides. While previously the individual not the internet companies have been the focal point of prosecutions, this opens-up a whole new avenue for rights owners who believe communications service providers are being negligent, or too passive.

AT&T is one company which might be sleeping easier than others though. Last year, AT&T reshaped its own piracy policies which led to the first instance of it cutting off customers from internet services due to piracy infringements. Examples of proactive protection of copyright like this is what the telcos will need to prove if they are to avoid the same significant financial burdens as Cox is facing here.

Facebook gets a thumbs-up from privacy officials

The Advocate General to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has said Facebook is not in violation of privacy rules in transferring data to US servers.

In a rare sign of approval from privacy officials, Facebook has won the backing of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe, who has confirmed Facebook Ireland is acting legally by sending data to servers located in the US. The opinion from Øe is in connection with a lawsuit filed by Austrian privacy advocate Max Schrems.

Removing all the legal jargon, Øe’s opinion is that there are adequate protections in place to ensure the rights of European citizens are maintained in the event data is transferred from Facebook’s Irish servers to be processed in the US. Agreements have been signed between the two parties which contain contractual clauses to enforce the privacy rights of European citizens.

Although this is the opinion of the Advocate General and not binding for the CJEU, it is a very positive (and perhaps surprising) note for a company which so often flirts with privacy controversy.

For Schrems, this is not the most encouraging of signs. The CJEU is not bound to Øe’s opinion, but the courts rarely hold a different view to such high-ranking officials.

The court case in question was initially filed by Schrems, the man largely responsible for the downfall of the Safe Harbour mechanism dictating trans-Atlantic data transfer, in 2015. Schrems argued that in light of privacy violations highlighted by Edward Snowden, the Irish data protection authorities were falling short of their own responsibilities. As it had been proven intelligence agencies were spying on citizens, Schrems argued it was not possible to maintain the privacy rights of European citizens if data is transferred to the US.

With the downfall of Safe Harbour, the mechanism that deems protections were being upheld in the US, big questions were being asked. Schrems suggested that even with the contractual clauses in place protections could not be maintained and there was little justification to transfer data to US servers in the first place.

Øe’s opinion disagrees with these assertions. Firstly, the ‘exporter’ has placed appropriate protections, and secondly, the US Government is entitled to process some data under the banner of national security.

Schrems has been fighting Facebook and other internet platforms for years in an attempt to stop the flow of information across the Atlantic. He and other privacy advocates suggest this information is being used to aide US intelligence agencies in snooping on European citizens. While his actions certainly were successful in bringing down Safe Harbour, he has been less successful in arguing the invalidity of the replacement mechanism, Privacy Shield.

Data protection is, and will continue to be, a significant talking point in the increasingly digital world, though this is a case which will add some confidence in the internet platforms so many people blindly trust. The new digital world needs people like Schrems to hold Big Tech accountable, though it does appear this is a case where the internet giants are on the right side of the line.

Cisco names rival in trade secret lawsuit

Cisco has updated an existing lawsuit to include its rival, Poly, as well as Poly Executives, in the trade secret dispute.

Although Poly employees were named in the original lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, it was believed the three ex-Cisco employees acted individually. Cisco has suggested new evidence has emerged which drags Poly directly into the saga.

“I cannot emphasize enough that we did not want to bring this litigation,” said Mark Chandler, Chief Legal Officer for Cisco. “We worked hard to have the issues addressed directly by Poly.

“Poly is a competitor in the collaboration space, and we are focused on innovating in the market, not litigating in the courts. This litigation is not about Poly products. It’s about Poly’s refusal to address a serious cultural issue, characterized by repeated efforts to receive and use Cisco trade secrets and confidential information in their business.”

Cisco now believes its rival Poly was proactively aiding the three named defendants, while Executive Vice President, Thomas Puorro, who is also a former Cisco employee, is alleged to have been critical in encouraging the movement of trade secrets from Cisco to Poly. The original lawsuit stated the three individuals acted alone, though Cisco now suggests Poly actively pursued individuals to gain access to Cisco’s trade secrets.

The case focuses around the activities of three individuals, and, in particular, Dr Wilson Chung. Chung worked at Cisco for more than a decade, rising to become a Principal Engineer at the business. Over the first few months of 2019, Chung handed in his notice at Cisco, downloaded more than 3,000 sensitive documents, which eventually emerged when Chung begun his role at Poly in February 2019.

Although the focus of the lawsuit will continue to remain on the three individuals and their actions, dragging Poly into the lawsuit is an important point. Corporations generally don’t like to sue each other, so this would have been a very considered move by Cisco.

Huawei files defamation lawsuits in France

Huawei has filed defamation lawsuits against two individuals in France after claims that the business is controlled by the Chinese Government were aired on national television.

While these lawsuits are only coming to light now, the lawsuits were filed back in March, following interviews on television. The two individuals in question, who are remaining anonymous until the courts decide otherwise, suggested Huawei is a puppet of the Chinese Government, relating to the ownership structure and the history of founder Ren Zhengfei, who was a member of the engineering corps of the People’s Liberation Army.

Although defamation lawsuits are a very rare occurrence in the technology segment, Huawei has been taking an increasingly aggressive stance against its critics in recent months. In previous years, Huawei might have been happy to sit back, letting the hot air pass by, however 2019 has certainly seen a different strategy.

Perhaps the most notable example of this shift is the public presence of founder Ren Zhengfei. Ren has traditionally avoided the limelight though the ‘Coffee with Ren’ segments to discuss various issues and accusations directed at the firm has been regularly hitting the airwaves over the course of the year.

Alongside the more public presence of Ren, Huawei also filed a lawsuit against the US Government, suggesting it was an unconstitutional as Congress is not permitted to pass laws targeting individuals or specific companies. Although Congress did not word the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to enforce a complete ban, the nuanced language made it effectively impossible for either Huawei or ZTE to do any meaningful work in the US.

There are various other examples, but it is a much more proactive defence of the business than has been seen in previous years.

Looking at the French situation, Huawei does need to be very careful. The French Government has already created a law which allows it to veto the introduction of components or products in communications infrastructure which are deemed to compromise national security. This is not a ban, Huawei is still permitted to bid for projects, though once again nuanced language has been introduced to potentially allow a ban with little/no evidence.

While the damage to Huawei’s business has been limited for the moment, it is far from in a healthy position. Many of the major European markets are yet to make a formal, and long-term, decision on Huawei’s presence in the market. France is an influential voice across the bloc, with decisions and opinions creating ripples in other European nations.

Huawei statement:

“Huawei has filed 3 complaints alleging public defamation of the company in March 2019. The complaints relate to claims that Huawei is a Chinese company controlled by state and Chinese Communist Party; that it is led by a former “counter-intelligence” member and that it uses its technological expertise in telecom networks to commit acts of espionage to the detriment of the Western world.

“Huawei believes these statements are seriously defamatory. Huawei is a private company, 100% owned by its employees. For the last 30 years since it was founded, there has never been a serious cyber-security issue with Huawei products.

“These complaints are directed against the authors of the comments and not to the media that report them. Huawei respects the independence of the media and the freedom of the press.”

Apple and Ireland begin appealing €14.3bn tax bill

Lawyers representing Apple and the Irish Government has begun their arguments in the EU’s lower General Court in an attempt to protect the suspect corporate tax environment.

In 2016, the European Commission ordered the Irish Government to collect back-taxes off Apple to the tune of €14.3 billion, including interest. Apple does not want to pay tax. Ireland does not want to collect it. Europe wants a level playing field. The lawyers are looking forward to nuance to bolster their bank accounts.

During the opening arguments, Apple’s lawyers suggested the European Commission decision “defies reality and common sense,” according to Reuters. Both the iPhone manufacturer and the Irish Government will argue against the decision to tax environment contravenes state aid rules.

Let’s be clear. Ireland is a tax haven. It is facilitating corporate tax avoidance. It is helping corporates collect greater profits without rewarding the societies they strain. Irish Government officials should be embarrassed they are helping technology giants abuse its European partners, the very same European partners which bailed it out of financial doomsday a decade ago.

This is a selfish position, and just at the time when the country is looking to Europe to protect it as Brexit looms large on the horizon.

Some might argue the Irish Government is entitled to charge whatever tax it wants. However, a modern society works because the general public and corporations pay taxes. It pays for roads, schools, hospitals, police officers and postal workers. There are technology giants out there who are asking consumers to strain their wallets further each year and care less about their right to privacy, but they are not willing to contribute to the societies which are fuelling the monstrous profits reported every three months.

With international borders being broken down, much to the distaste of some, irregular taxation policies can be taken advantage of. This is what is happening here. It beggars belief that Ireland can argue the benefits of the single economy, and still maintain this position, weakening the position of partners, depriving them of much needed taxes.

This is not the position the European Commission has taken, but it is the one each of Ireland’s partners in Europe should. Why should Ireland be able to collect all the benefits of Apple’s assaults on the European digital economy when it is citizens of every other nation which is fuelling the iLeader’s growth?

For some, it might sound bizarre that the Irish Government doesn’t want to collect €14.3 billion off Apple, but there are two reasons for this.

Firstly, if the Irish lawyers were not to fight back against the enforced tax run, it is effectively conceded to the assertion that it is a corporate tax haven. The last thing the Irish Government wants to do is admit that it is helping the already richly rewarded residents of Silicon Valley rip-off neighbouring governments further with creative tax strategies.

Secondly, Ireland needs to ensure it is viewed as a friendly corporate-tax environment moving forward if it is to continue to attract corporations to its borders. Ireland doesn’t necessarily have the best talent, it doesn’t have the largest economy and it doesn’t have a local supply chain for manufacturing. It needs a plug to interest the likes of Apple, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Twitter, Pinterest, PayPal and Amazon to house their European HQ in the country.

The value of the technology industry to both the Irish Government and society should not be undervalued. The Irish economy entered severe recession in 2008, and then an economic depression in 2009. The country was in tatters, though it was saved by the technology industry.

Over the last decade, technology giants thrived in the tax haven, creating new jobs directly and indirectly, and continues to be one of the biggest drivers today. Silicon Docks is as important to Dublin as Silicon Valley is to California.

That said, the European Commission does not agree this dynamic should be allowed to continue.

Should the Irish Government continue this favourable tax regime for certain companies, a competitive advantage is offered. The Commission, ably led by Margrethe Vestager, has been tackling anti-competitive business practises for years. If such a monstrous company like Apple is given a competitive advantage, state aid to run riot, start-ups will always be on the back-foot. Competition will likely never emerge, and the consumer will be in a precarious position.

Over the next couple of days, lawyers representing Apple and the Irish Government will argue against the opinion of the European Commission, attempting to overturn an order to collect back-taxes and create a more reasonable tax environment. It will argue that it is perfectly reasonable for it to help Apple bleed the consumer dry and then hide profits from governments who are asking for a fair contribution back to society to pay nurses.

Ireland should be embarrassed.

AT&T sued for massaging DirecTV figures

If there is a headache in the shape of activist investor Elliott Management already, AT&T executives will be reaching for the aspirin once again as investors sue over suspect figures.

Filed in the US District Court for Southern New York, Melvin Gross is the man leading a coalition of investors to sue AT&T, suggesting the management team misled investors over the performance of its DirecTV video products. The massaged figures might be viewed as an attempt to save face (as well as jobs), though the lawsuit also suggests executives were attempting to justify the incredibly expensive acquisition of Time Warner through nefarious means.

“Moreover, several of the Executive Defendants had strong personal interests in promoting the success of DirecTV Now in order to persuade the market of the logic behind the Time Warner Acquisition,” the filing states.

“The failure of DirecTV Now, prior to the closing of the Acquisition, could have jeopardized the transaction, a result that would have been disastrous for the Defendants.”

Through a combination of fake email addresses and additional charges for customers without consent, practises which were allegedly encouraged by managers, AT&T is effectively accused of fraud. Investors are also suggesting the executive team presented misleading numbers down the omission of promotional numbers. 500,000 net adds disappeared once a three month for $10 deal disappeared, though this risk was apparently not appropriately communicated.

By hyping the performance of DirecTV Now, investors might be encouraged to double-down on momentum in the content unit, funding another monstrous acquisition. However, as the lawsuit states, investors might not be buoyed to spend $108.7 billion (including debt) should the 2014, $67.1 billion DirecTV purchase be viewed as a failure.

This is somewhat of a conspiracy theory, though the DirecTV Now numbers were not anywhere near as attractive during the financial earnings call once AT&T was committed to the Time Warner transaction. As you can see from the table below, the timing is a bit suspicious:

Period Net adds (loss in brackets)
Q2 2019 (168,000)
Q1 2019 (83,000)
Q4 2018 (267,000)
Q3 2018 49,000
Q2 2018 342,000
Q1 2018 312,000
Q4 2017 368,000
Q3 2017 296,000

The Time Warner acquisition was first announced in October 2016 and closed in June 2018. In the financial earnings call following the closure of the transaction (Q3 2018), the DirecTV gains started to crumble away.

With the aggressive expansion and success the AT&T executive team was suggesting up-to Q2 2018, investors will of course have been enthusiastic about adding to the momentum. On the other side, you can see why some are reasonably irked by the reality of the situation. It does appear the fact many of these gains were either irresponsibly attributed or unlikely to be anything more than short-term gain.

Although DirecTV is the focal point of the lawsuit, the Time Warner acquisition is the central cog which the saga flows around.

The content strategy from AT&T is relatively simple. The DirecTV acquisition offered a mobile-friendly content delivery model, and the Time Warner purchase offered a horde of content allowing the telco to compound gains. Both, theoretically, work independently, but the combination is more attractive if you have a bank account big enough to fund the expansion.

However, as the lawsuit suggests, investors might be a bit sheepish in giving the greenlight to a $108 billion acquisition if the ROI from the $67 billion purchase are not living up to the original promise. The AT&T theory and business model is theoretically sound, though if the lawsuit is successful, heads may roll due to the route the management team took to get to the finish line.

The content bet from AT&T is already looking suspect, and this lawsuit will not help the situation.

Alongside this filing, the management team is also under attack from Elliott Management, the vulture fund which specialises in restructuring businesses, promoting a shift towards a utilitised business model and realising short/mid-term gains through increased dividends and share price increases.

The activist investor has taken a $3.2 billion stake in AT&T and has recently sent a letter to shareholders attacking the AT&T strategy and competency of the management team. The content business has come under-fire, with Elliott Management pushing for divestments and a more stringent focus on traditional connectivity products. It’s a strategy which could force the telco down the utilitisation path, something which is unlikely to benefit the business in the long-term.

The emergence of this lawsuit certainly aids the Elliott Management case, however we think the timing is more coincidental. Some might suggest the vulture fund is behind the lawsuit, but we think it is more a case of pleasant timing.

For the AT&T management team, this is a potential disaster. Not only do these executives have an aggressive activist investor calling for their heads, they have now been named in the lawsuit, with the complainants suggesting they encouraged under-handed tactics to directly mislead the market. This is turning into a very uncomfortable month for the AT&T management team.

Huawei hits back, claiming US is threatening its employees

Perhaps this is the first hint of a new media strategy from the under-fire vendor as Huawei suggests the US Government is encouraging threats and menace to turns its employees against it.

Although this is only a single act, it is a very different approach to how Huawei has been managing the drama through the last 12 months. This is maybe the position it has been forced into by White House aggression; it might have to start fighting fire with fire.

In a statement, Huawei has suggested the US Government has been “instructing law enforcement to threaten, menace, coerce, entice, and incite both current and former Huawei employees to turn against the company and work for them.”

In shining a light on the bullying tactics of the US Government, perhaps the executive team is looking for sympathy from friendlier nations or for someone to step-in and suggest the actions are not proper. The US Government certainly won’t be shifted from its current course through social embarrassment but calling attention to the strategy it might sour the relationship between the US and other nations around the world.

Aside from encouraging government agencies to act through ‘unscrupulous means’, Huawei is also suggesting the US is:

  • Unlawfully searching, detaining, and even arresting Huawei employees
  • Launching cyber-attacks against the firm
  • Coercing other companies to bring unsubstantiated accusations against the company
  • Attempting entrapment
  • Obstructing normal business activities and technical communications through intimidation, denying visas and detaining shipment

Although it isn’t entirely clear what the desired outcome of this statement actually is, it is a new approach. To date, Huawei has sat back and absorbed the abuse. Its messages have focused on proving its own innocence, as opposed to tackling its opponent. Perhaps this is about to change.

With this statement, Huawei is calling attention to the less attractive traits of the US. It might consider itself as the front-line of defence, the world police in some people’s eyes, however it can also be viewed as a bully. Not only would many deem this inappropriate, if some of the claims above prove to be true, the White House might well be acting illegally.

President Trump’s administration certainly does things differently from those who have previously inhabited the White House, though the jury is still out on what this actually means. Some like the fact Trump is shaking up politics, some suggest he is an embarrassment to a privileged position of responsibility, a shambolic disaster who stumbles from one inappropriate statement to the next calamitous action.

It does seem there is an element of the ‘straw which broke the camel’s back’ here.

This chapter of the on-going saga is focused on a patent dispute with Rui Pedro Oliveira which has now being going on for two years. Circling around the development of a camera design included in Huawei smartphones, the Department of Justice has launched an investigation as a result. Huawei believes Oliveira is taking advantage of the geopolitical climate and the US Government is jumping on another opportunity to swing the stick at the firm.

Perhaps this will be the beginning of a new media strategy, drawing the attention to the US’ ugly traits. This Presidential administration has certainly taken a more combative, bullying approach to international relations, though we suspect it will not be too bothered by the Huawei statements. That said, other governments might take notice and start getting irked by the continued campaign of hate and ‘unpresidential’ actions.

Oregon joins the anti-merger brigade to dampen T-Mobile/Sprint party

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has is the latest recruit for the coalition of lawyers aiming to block the merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint.

Almost immediately after FCC Chairman Ajit Pai offered his blessing for the union, Rosenblum hit back with the announcement. T-Mobile US and Sprint might be collecting the approvals from government agencies, but unless they can figure out how to appease the Attorney Generals, another headache looms large on the horizon.

“It’s important that Oregon join other states in opposing the Sprint-T-Mobile merger,” said Rosenblum. “If left unchallenged, the current plan will result in reduced access to affordable wireless service in Oregon — and higher prices. Neither is acceptable.

“Oregon’s addition to our lawsuit keeps our momentum going and ensures that there isn’t a single region of this country that doesn’t oppose this anticompetitive megamerger,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “We welcome Attorney General Rosenblum to our 16-member coalition that now includes states representing almost half of the U.S. population. We remain committed to blocking the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint because it would be bad for consumers, bad for workers, and bad for innovation.”

James is of course the ring-leader when it comes to this legal saga, though we suspect in crafting the position of consumer champion, the Attorney General of New York has higher political ambitions. Irrelevant to the end-game, James has proven to be very effective in collecting support for this lawsuit.

Rosenblum will now become the 16th member of an increasingly dangerous opponent for T-Mobile US and Sprint. One lawyer as an opponent is a daunting prospect, but 16 Attorney Generals and 16 antitrust department working against the progress of the merger is the stuff corporate nightmares are made of.

The full list of States now opposing the merger include: New York, California, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

Having been filed with the District Court for New York on June 11, we suspect this might be somewhat of a prolonged battle. First, judges in New York will have to decide on the appropriateness of the merger, though you can almost guarantee whatever outcome will be appealed by the losing party. We suspect this is a see-sawing legal conflict which will carry on for months.

T-Mobile US and Sprint are nearing the finish line, but it is still well out of reach for the moment.