A US court issues a temporary restraining order preventing Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition and sets an evidentiary hearing for June 22 and 23, 2023
A federal court has issued a temporary restraining order that will prevent Microsoft from closing its $68.7 billion deal to acquire Activision Blizzard — at least for now.
The VergeJay Peters
Context & Ripple Effects
The order follows the FTC’s request for emergency court intervention and moves the dispute from an agency challenge into a near-term federal evidentiary process.
It became an early hinge in a longer sequence: the court later rejected the FTC’s preliminary-injunction request, after which the agency appealed the ruling and ultimately suspended its in-house proceeding to allow settlement discussions.
First-order effects
Microsoft and Activision Blizzard cannot complete the $68.7 billion transaction while the restraining order is in force; both must prepare evidence for the June 22–23 hearing.
The FTC gains a short window to present its case for a preliminary injunction before the parties can close the deal.
Second-order effects
The transaction’s timetable becomes contingent on the federal court’s assessment of the FTC’s theories of harm, raising the immediate legal and execution burden for Microsoft and Activision Blizzard.
The hearing sets up the next decisive procedural test; the later denial of a preliminary injunction shows that a temporary pause did not itself resolve the merits of the agency’s challenge.
Third-order effects
The sequence illustrates how emergency injunction requests can determine whether regulators get meaningful time to test a major technology acquisition before closing, even when the underlying agency case remains unresolved.
If this litigation pattern persists, merger enforcement will increasingly turn on fast, evidence-heavy court battles and follow-on appeals rather than solely on administrative proceedings.
The trend: This is one data point in the growing use of emergency federal-court litigation to test regulators’ ability to pause contested technology mergers before they close.
Microsoft was right: forcing the FTC's hand is definitely expediting the legal fight. Xbox response by 6/16 FTC follow-up by 6/20 Court hearing by 6/22 [image]
#Microsoft #Activision - this two-day evidentiary hearing will be like a mini-trial. Remember Activision can walk away with $2 billion on July 18. Means it's possible judge could rule before then. In private case, took her 8 days between hearing and order. https://twitter.com/...
all eyes are now on the ruling for the preliminary injunction. It was expected that the FTC would secure the TRO, but the PI is a much higher hurdle to pass. The FTC lost its request for an injunction in the Meta Within acquisition earlier this year https://www.theverge.com/...
the FTC gets its temporary restraining order in the Microsoft-Activision case in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District. an evidentiary hearing for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for 6/22 and 6/23 [image]
Judge Corley in SF who is overseeing the FTC's just filed fed court case to block the Microsoft/Activision deal, set a hearing for June 22-23, less than two weeks after the FTC sought the preliminary injunction. Not sure if this has ever happened so fast https://storage.courtlist…
Here's the wording: “Microsoft and Activision shall not close or consummate their proposed transaction or a substantially similar transaction until after 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time on the fifth business day after the Court rules on the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction...
BREAKING: Microsoft has been temporarily restrained from buying Activision Blizzard, a judge rules. The FTC has secured a temporary restraining order that will last until the court rules on the preliminary injunction in a hearing starting June 22nd https://www.theverge.com/... [i…
The FTC's weeks long admin. trial starts Aug. 2, so its possible there could be a PI ruling before that starts. The companies are barred from closing their deal until the 5th day after Corley rules. She is already familiar with the case from presiding over a related class action