Final answer:
Lawyers likely focused on antitrust regulations and monopolistic practices when evaluating the 2005 merger between Gillette and P&G, ensuring compliance to prevent market concentration and ensure consumer benefit.
Step-by-step explanation:
When the FTC approved the merger of the Gillette Company with Procter & Gamble in 2005, lawyers were most likely concerned with antitrust regulations and potential monopolistic practices. This is because such mergers can sometimes lead to market concentration, reduced competition, higher prices, reduced availability of goods or services, lower product quality, and less innovation. The antitrust laws empower government regulators to prohibit mergers, allow them under certain conditions, or require the divestiture of certain assets to maintain competition.
For instance, the example of Johnson & Johnson's acquisition of Pfizer's consumer health division explains how the company was required to sell off several brands to preserve competitive markets. Such conditions are a common way for antitrust regulators to prevent the creation of monopolies or practices that could harm consumers. Lawyers in the Gillette and P&G merger would have scrutinized the deal extensively to ensure compliance with these antitrust regulations to avoid legal and competitive issues post-merger.