Law360, New York (March 21, 2017, 1:23 PM EDT) -- There is an old children's book that warns of what happens when you give a mouse a cookie. The mouse will want a glass of milk, a mirror, nail scissors, and the list goes on. This children's book could easily have been describing merger defendants' efforts to push antitrust policy toward far more permissive standards in merger defenses. A perfect example of this is found in the Anthem Inc. merger case now on appeal in the D.C. Circuit (oral arguments Friday).[1] After the U.S. Department of Justice did an excellent job of proving consumer harm as a result of the proposed merger, Anthem appealed on the theory that they surely would have won the case if only the judge had given far more credit to their efficiencies defense than virtually any other court has in the history of the defense....