We model merger control procedures as a process of sequential acquisition of information and compare US and EU procedures. In the US, the authorities do not have to justify their decision to require further information (issue a second request), whereas in the EU, the authorities face a di_erent (enforceable) standard of proof in phase I relative to phase II. We _nd that in the absence of remedies, the US procedure is always superior in terms of expected consumer welfare. When we allow for remedies, we _nd that, compared to the US, merging parties in the EU have more scope to propose remedies in phase I that will preempt the authorities from uncovering unfavorable information in phase II, and this might reduce expected consumer welfare. However, the higher standard of proof in phase I can also in some circumstances act as a commitment not to accept remedies below some threshold and yield a higher expected consumer welfare in the EU. Our model also shows that for global mergers that have the same effect in the two jurisdictions, a decision to trigger a Phase II in the EU yields the same expected consumer welfare as a clearance in Phase I with remedies in the US. However, the converse is not true.
