Mergers and Acquisition Impact on Product prices

As per the given scenario in the case I support the blockage of this merger by
the federal trade commission because this is for sure will increase the prices of
the product which was less priorly due to competition of both in the same
market.
This can be justified with newest example of Uber eats acquisition by Zomato.
Since the take-over of it delivery charges, Subscription charges and had cut
discount rates. Since there is one less player in the market now and only two
player Zomato and Swiggy, both of these already established habits of door
delivery system so now they can charge fee hikes despite worrying much about
loss of market share. But still its early days so this not be the correct example
to justify the situation entirely.
We can justify this situation in a better manner by understanding the situation
after P7G acquisition of Tambrand. The purchase of Tambrands for $1.85
billion in July1997 by Proctor and Gamble (P&G) gave P&G the leading brands
of tampons (Tampax) and sanitary pads (Always) in the United States. At first
glance this merger did not appear likely to have been anti-competitive.
Tampons and pads are two different types of feminine hygiene products, and
many consumers likely feel that the products (while functionally similar) are
not close substitutes. However, both the tampon and pad markets (or a
combined market) were highly concentrated before the acquisition, with only
five branded firms selling either type of product. Hence, if pads and tampons
are important substitutes, it would not be surprising to see a post-acquisition
price increase.
While tampons and sanitary pads may not appear to consumers to be close
substitutes, the results suggest that P&G increased the price of pads, liners,
and possibly tampons following its acquisition of Tambrands. Always liner and
pad prices increased by 8 percent and Tampax tampon prices increased by 4
percent. When compared to the price of branded products, the prices of
Always liners and pads still increased, but Tampax tampon prices appear to be
unchanged. The Always liner and pad price increases are larger than those for
the products in the branded control group. However, the change in Tampax’s
price is smaller than the price changes of two of the three brands in the
branded control group. The reductions in market share are fairly consistent
with the estimated price changes for Tampax and Always liners. Always pads
increase market share despite an increase in their price relative to branded
and private-label pads.
In the private-label control group, 92 percent of the estimated price effects are
positive, and 70 percent of these are significantly different from zero. When
the branded control group is used, about 78 percent of the estimated price
effects are positive, and 59 percent of these are significantly different than
zero. Only one of the 27 price changes estimated using the branded control
group shows an economically significant (between 1 and 5 percent) post-
merger price decrease. The private-label control group has important
advantages because private-label producers are less likely to increase their
prices in response to a price increase by the merging parties. Finally, the
estimated price effects are larger when price is measured using average
revenue rather than controlling for package size using the two weighted price
indexes. While the results do not unambiguously show a price increase, on net
the evidence suggests that P&G increased the prices of its feminine hygiene
products after purchasing Tambrands.
This completely indicates that because of the merger of two leading firms in
the market generally there is price surge in the market as it directly ends the
competition between the top player which affects economies of scales and
ultimately impacts the prices.