Article thumbnail

The Prohibition of the Proposed Springer-ProSiebenSat.1-Merger: How much Economics in German Merger Control?

By Oilver Budzinski and Katharina Wacker


We review the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office Germany) decision on the proposed merger between Springer and ProSiebenSat.1 from an economic point of view. In doing so, it is not our goal to analyse whether the controversial decision by the Bundeskartellamt has been correct or flawed from a legal point of view. Instead, we analyse whether the economic reasoning in the decision document reflects state-of-the-art economic theory on conglomerate mergers. Regarding such types of mergers, anticompetitive effects either do not occur regularly or are more often than not overcompensated by efficiency gains, so that a standard welfare perspective demands reluctance concerning antitrust interventions. This is particularly true if two-sided markets, like media markets, are involved. However, anticompetitive conglomerate mergers are not impossible, in particular in neighbouring markets where there is some relationship between the products of the merging companies. In line with the more-economic approach in European merger control, a particular thorough line of argumentation, backed with particularly convincing economic evidence, is necessary to justify a prohibition of a conglomerate merger from an economic point of view. Against this background, we do not find the reasoning of the Bundeskartellamt entirely convincing and sufficiently strong to justify a prohibition of the proposed combination from an economic perspective. The reasons are that (i) the Bundeskartellamt fails to continuously consider consumer and customer welfare as the relevant standards, (ii) positive efficiency and welfare effects of cross-media strategies are neglected, (iii) in contrast, the competition agency sometimes appears to view profitability of post-merger strategy options to be per se anticompetitive (efficiency offence), (iv) the incontestability of the relevant markets is not sufficiently substantiated, (v) inconsistencies occur regarding the symmetry of the TV advertising market duopoly versus the unique role of the BILD-Zeitung and (vi) the employment of modern economic instruments appears to be underdeveloped. Thus, we conclude that the Bundeskartellamt has not embraced the European more-economic approach in the analysed decision. However, one can discuss whether economic effects are overcompensated in this case by concerns about a reduction in diversity of opinion and threats to free speech. Similar to the Bundeskartellamt, we do not consider these concerns in our analysis.merger control, media markets, more-economic approach, conglomerate mergers, cross-promotion

OAI identifier:

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles


  1. (1990). A Strategic Motivation for Commodity Bundling, in:
  2. (2003). A Structural Analysis of Media Convergence: Cross-Industry Mergers and Acquisitions in the Information Industries, in:
  3. (2006). Beschluss B6-103/05 (Axel Springer/ProSiebenSat1 Media) vom 19.1.2006, available at
  4. (1991). Bundling as a Facilitating Device: A Reinterpretation of Leverage Theory,
  5. (2000). Compatibility and Bundling with Generalist and Specialist Firms, in:
  6. (2005). Competence Allocation in the EU Competition Policy System as an Interest-Driven Process, in:
  7. (2000). Competing Against Bundles, Yale School of Management -
  8. (1997). Concentration and Public Policies in the Broadcasting Industry:
  9. (2006). Cross-mediale Effekte in der Fusionskontrolle, in:
  10. (1995). Das Recht der Fusionskontrolle und Medienfusionskontrolle,
  11. (2004). Defining Two-Sided Markets, Discussion Paper,
  12. (2006). Does Parallel Behavior Provide Some Evidence of Collusion?, in:
  13. (2007). Eine "Heuschrecke" steigt bei ProSiebenSat.1 Media ein, in:
  14. (2006). Entscheidung vom 10.01.2007:
  15. (1997). Equilibrium Product Bundling, in:
  16. (2000). Fortschreitende Medienkonzentration im Zeichen der Konvergenz – Konzentrationsbericht der Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich,
  17. (2005). Fusions- und Kartellerleichterungen für Zeitungsverlage aus wettbewerbsrechtlicher Sicht, in:
  18. (2000). Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets, in:
  19. (2005). Mario Monti’s Legacy: A U.S. Perspective, in:
  20. (2004). Mergers and Strategic Alliances in the Emerging Multi-Media Sector: The EU Competition Policy, in:
  21. (2006). Mergers in the Media Sector: Business as Usual?,
  22. (2006). On the Need and Advantages of Specific Media Regulation: Some Critical Remarks,
  23. (1997). Option Contracts and Vertical Foreclosure, in:
  24. (2000). Predatory Pricing: Strategic Theory and Legal Policy, in:
  25. (2005). Regulation for Pluralism in the Media Markets, Bocconi University and IGIER, mimeo, available at tbn=albero&id_doc=177.
  26. (2005). Springer-ProSiebenSat.1: Viel Lärm um nichts, in:
  27. (1999). Strategic and Welfare Implications of Bundling, in:
  28. (2000). Systems Competition, Vertical Merger, and Foreclosure, in:
  29. (2005). Tetra Laval/Sidel: Microeconomics or Microlaw?, in:
  30. (2006). The Analysis of Coordinated Effects in EU Merger Control: Where Do We Stand After Sony/BMG and Impala?, in:
  31. (2005). The Analysis of Tying Cases: A Primer, in:
  32. (2005). The Attempted Merger between General Electric and Honeywell: A Case Study of Transatlantic Conflict, in:
  33. (2005). The Efficiency-Enhancing Effects of Non-Horizontal Mergers, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, available at
  34. (2006). The GE/Honeywell Judgement and the Assessment Conglomerate Effects: What’s New in EC Practice?, in:
  35. (2006). The Impact of the New Substantive Test in European Merger Control, in:
  36. (2004). The Impact of Vertical and Conglomerate Mergers on Competition, Final Report for the European Commission, available at
  37. (2006). The Media and Advertising: a Tale of Two-Sided Markets,
  38. (2006). The Reform of EU Merger Control: Fundamental Reversal or Mere Refinement?, available at
  39. (2002). The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries, in:
  40. (2005). Tied and True Exclusion, in:
  41. (2003). Two important Merger Regulation Judgments: the Implications of "Schneider-Legrand" and "Tetra Laval-Sidel", in:
  42. (2005). Two-Sided Markets: A Tentative Survey, in:
  43. (2003). Tying in Two-Sided Markets, Discussion Paper,
  44. (1990). Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion, in:
  45. (2001). Tying, Investment, and the Dynamic Leverage Theory, in:
  46. (2003). Werbefinanzierung und Wettbewerb auf dem deutschen Fernsehmarkt,
  47. (2007). Wettbewerb und Regulierung im deutschen Fernsehmarkt: Deregulierungsbedarf und Umsetzungsbedingungen,
  48. (2006). Wie die KEK gefühlte Meinungsmacht in eine Eingriffskompetenz umrechnet, in:
  49. (2006). Zur Ablehnung des Zusammenschlussvorhabens Axel Springer