Last year, the Department of Justice sued to block AT&T’s latest merger, explaining in detail how AT&T would use its newfound power to jack up prices for “must have” Time Warner content like HBO, harming consumers and competitors alike. But US District Court Judge Richard Leon rejected the government’s argument in a ruling last June that was widely criticized for being absurdly narrow .

The DOJ appealed late last year, noting AT&T raised prices on consumers and competitors like Dish Network, which was forced to drop the channel from its cable lineup because the company couldn’t afford the higher rates. This, the DOJ noted, simply proved its original point.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a ruling Tuesday morning rejecting the DOJ’s arguments, stating DOJ claims that the courts “misunderstood and misapplied economic principles” and “clearly erred” were “unpersuasive.”

Still, the problems created by the deal are already abundantly obvious.

AT&T’s 2015 merger with DirecTV and last year’s union with Time Warner saddled the telecom giant with an unprecedented level of debt. To dig out from underneath this debt load, AT&T has been laying off employees and raising rates.

In the wake of the Time Warner Deal, AT&T quickly jacked up the cost of its DirecTV Now streaming service, something AT&T lawyers had claimed wouldn’t happen during the original trial. AT&T also quickly hiked its “administrative fee” applied on wireless customers, netting the company an additional $800 million per year.

Meanwhile, AT&T began quietly using the death of net neutrality protections to its competitive advantage, applying usage caps and overage fees on its broadband customers if they use competing services like Netflix, but not if they use AT&T’s own streaming services.

In a statement, AT&T insisted this kind of behavior was innovative and beneficial to consumers.