The plaintiffs sued Microsoft in California federal court in December to void the deal, which they said was harmful to competition.
San Francisco Federal Court Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said in a ruling late Friday that video game users had failed to show that they would suffer “irreparable harm” if the acquisition went through.
Microsoft and its attorneys say the acquisition will benefit consumers.
Corley dismissed claims from video game users that Microsoft would limit the game’s availability. He said there was no evidence the company would stop making existing versions of Call of Duty after the planned acquisition.
“The day after the acquisition, they can play the same way they played with their friends before the acquisition,” Corley wrote.
He also said it was “unlikely” that Microsoft would make any new versions of “Call of Duty” exclusive to the company’s platform.
A Microsoft spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.
Joseph Alioto, an attorney for the video game users, said Monday they would continue to challenge the deal despite losing the preliminary round.
The court order comes just days after Microsoft received approval for the deal from European Union antitrust authorities. The deal is subject to review by the US Federal Trade Commission, as well as in China and South Korea.
The deal, believed to be the largest ever in the gambling industry, has been rejected by UK competition authorities. The deadline for Microsoft to appeal the decision is May 24.
US antitrust law allows plaintiffs to sue mergers and acquisitions.
Read the Latest World News Today on The Eastern Herald.
