if it's a market, and the majority of players are on board and have signed contracts, it absolutely does have relevance.
the regulators job is to protect competition, industries, the country and consumers. If consumers see the deal is good and are for the deal and the market, most notable the smaller players are for the deal... and it has no negative impact to competition (it clearly doesn't) and it doesn't impact the economy or country (it absolutely doesn't) then the regulator is working outside it's mandate. They aren't doing anything besides acting out of personal preference.
You need evidence. Evidence the entity would dominate. Evidence that consumers would be negatively impacted. Evidence of intent. Evidence to support your claims. Ignoring deals is ignoring evidence that support the deal. Ignoring market data is ignoring evidence that supports the deal. CMA absolutely cannot pick and choose evidence because then they aren't being fair or just, they aren't giving proportional judgments and is acting contrary to their standing orders. That would make this process illegal. This is why MS wants to get regulatory communications because if they were informed of these things and disregarded it, then they are not making decisions based on facts.
As MS said during that CAT conference, they got more materials for the CMA process from the EC than from the CMA. If you aren't acting in good faith, you are likely breaking the law.
