FTC Challenges Proposed Casino Merger | Practical Law

FTC Challenges Proposed Casino Merger | Practical Law

The FTC filed a complaint challenging Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.'s proposed $2.8 billion acquisition of Ameristar Casinos, Inc.

FTC Challenges Proposed Casino Merger

Practical Law Legal Update 6-530-9010 (Approx. 3 pages)

FTC Challenges Proposed Casino Merger

by PLC Antitrust
Published on 03 Jun 2013USA (National/Federal)
The FTC filed a complaint challenging Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.'s proposed $2.8 billion acquisition of Ameristar Casinos, Inc.
On May 28, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it filed a complaint challenging Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.'s proposed $2.8 billion acquisition of Ameristar Casinos, Inc. The FTC alleged that the acquisition, agreed upon on December 21, 2012, would violate Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act by significantly reducing competition in the St. Louis, Missouri and Lake Charles, Louisiana casino markets. The complaint alleged that, in the St. Louis market, the acquisition would reduce the number of competitors from 4 to 3, give the combined entity a 58.4% share of the casino services market and increase the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) by 1,667. In the Lake Charles market, where the parties are potential competitors, the FTC alleged that the acquisition would increase the HHI by 1,306. Post-HHI values in both geographic markets are alleged to be above 2,500.
The additional alleged anticompetitive effects include:
  • Higher prices for casino play. For example:
    • less favorable slot hold rates;
    • increased rake rates, or the charge to play table games;
    • stricter table game rules and odds; and
    • less discounting and other benefits for casino customers.
  • Lower quality and level of service.
  • Increased likelihood of coordination between the combined entity and its remaining competitors.
The FTC reasoned that as competitors, Pinnacle and Ameristar vigorously compete for customers, which results in:
  • Better odds.
  • Free or lower-cost amenities.
  • A better overall gambling experience.
The FTC alleged that because there are significant barriers to entry, including state laws preventing additional casino market entrants, the prospect of new entry would not be sufficient to mitigate the lost competition.
Court documents: