Here’s a question that’s worth asking if you’re assessing the prospects for the outcome of a CMA merger investigation:

In recent years which minority type of merger accounted for 100% – yes, 100% – of the marked rise in CMA Phase 1 references to an in-depth Phase 2 investigation?

Was it…

1. Cases that the CMA selected for investigation (as opposed to cases notified by the parties)?
2. Cases involving a so-called non-horizontal theory of harm?
3. Cases that attracted complaints from customers and competitors?
4. Cases launched by the CMA in the second quarter of the year?
5. Cases that are anticipated (rather than completed) and that were qualified for investigation under the turnover test?
6. Cases that involved so-called ‘platform’ businesses?
7. Cases involving concerns about potential competition (as opposed to the removal of existing competition)?

Which answer would you choose? (Do drop me a line or put your answer in the comments box below)

If there’s sufficient interest I’ll look at the main candidates in future posts.

And, no, it’s not a trick question!

One of the above is the correct answer!….

…..Which in turn means revisiting the simple ‘rising CMA intervention’ narrative that often appears in commentaries.