Ryan Reynold’s $300M Mint Mobile Payment Day Threatened After US DOJ Considers Antitrust Case to Drop T-Mobile’s $1.35B Acquisition
- The US Department of Justice may act to stop T-Mobile’s acquisition of Ryan Reynolds’ Mint Mobile
- The $1.35 billion deal was announced in mid-March and could net Reynolds $300 million
- Reports say antitrust officials are concerned the sale will drive up mobile prices
The DOJ may step in when it comes to selling Ryan Reynolds’ Mint Mobile for $1.35 billion to mobile service giant T-Mobile, which will put about $300 million in the actor’s pocket.
New reports indicate that the US research firm is investigating the acquisition based on antitrust concerns.
Sources told New York Post the DOJ’s antitrust division is considering filing a lawsuit to stop the big deal, arguing that the sale could drive up mobile prices for US consumers.
Those with insight into the potential legal action say the DOJ is looking for a high-profile celebrity deal and wants to make an example of it.
The DOJ may step in to sell Ryan Reynolds’ Mint Mobile for $1.35 billion to mobile services giant T-Mobile
According to reports, the US research firm is investigating the acquisition due to antitrust issues
In an interview, Columbia law professor John Coffee said that some within the DOJ have honed the strategy of “going after public figures.”
“Now everyone in Hollywood will notice,” Coffee told The Post.
This isn’t the first time investigative agencies have gone after celeb-approved deals.
In 2022, the SEC went after Kim Kardashian for a crypto scheme.
The “pump and dump” strategy came under attack after Kardashian failed to disclose her payment.
“This case is a reminder that when celebrities or influencers endorse investment opportunities, including crypto-assets, it does not mean that those investment products are suitable for all investors,” SEC Chairman Gary Gensler said in 2022.
According to insiders, it is the progressives that US President Joe Biden has appointed to the DOJ and other investigative agencies that are behind such actions.
The DOJ has had other smaller deals play out, but sources said they are looking for a move in this major telecom consolidation move.
“Under Trump, we saw T-Mobile and Sprint consolidate, but under the Biden administration, we lost 15 wireless brands,” Peter Adderton, CEO of Mobile X Global, a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), said recently.
An MVNO is a company that uses the infrastructure of another large company to operate.
“The MNVOs drove prices down because they could be mean and skinny,” Adderton said.
“The only reason it’s hugely successful is because they offer more value to customers… Now big airlines just buy them up and raise prices instead of trying to compete.”
Sources told the New York Post that the DOJ’s antitrust division is considering filing a lawsuit to stop the big deal, citing fears the sale could drive up mobile prices for US consumers
Reynolds, a major shareholder of Mint, would earn about $300 million from the sale
In an interview, Columbia law professor John Coffee said some within the DOJ have tightened the strategy of “going after public figures”
Reynolds said in March that he was “incredibly proud and grateful” after the massive sale
In March, DailyMail.com reported that sources close to the Mint Mobile deal said Reynolds — who owns about 25 percent of the mobile company — would bring his share of the sale for about $300 million.
If the deal goes through, T-Mobile’s purchase of parent company Ka’ena Corp. access to low-cost wireless carrier Mint, along with Ultra Mobile and wholesaler Plum.
The brands, which already use T-Mobile for their network, will operate as a separate business unit.
“I never dreamed I’d own a wireless business and I certainly never dreamed I’d sell it to T-Mobile,” Reynolds said in a tweet. “Life is strange and I am incredibly proud and grateful.”
T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert said the company plans to boost Mint’s already successful digital direct-to-consumer business.
DailyMail.com reached out to Mint, T-Mobile and the DOJ for comment, but had not heard back at time of publication.