This Note explores the ruling of the U.S. Judge Victor Marrero in favor of the merger between T-Mobile and Sprint in terms of the specifics of the merger itself, and more broadly, the two dominant schools of antitrust thought: the consumer welfare standard and the competition standard and the specifics of the merger itself. Highlighting issues of antitrust law, this Note will first outline certain background concepts necessary to understand legal precedence around antitrust law. This Note will then trace the merger overtime and focus on how various opposition forces, citing violations of antitrust law, amassed a large body of supporters and later settled their claims.

Specifically, the Note will outline why there was opposition to the merger and what was done to alleviate it. Fourthly, this Note will elaborate on the facts used by Judge Marrero that helped him approve the merger. The Note will then explore a hypothetical of what would have happened, had the merger failed, to better contextualize the argument around the merger and understand the merits of its approval. The Note will lastly focus on how this case plays into the larger context of two dominating schools of antitrust policy. Defining both schools, this Note will conclude that it stands apart as satisfying metrics outlined and suggests it, tentatively, satisfies both schools.