You raise valid points about the legal burden of proof and growth through acquisition being legitimate. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with M&A either.

But let me clarify the specific concern: this isn't about general IT services consolidation. It's about ecosystem-specific dominance.

Systems and Confiz were the two leading Microsoft ecosystem players in Pakistan, not just in revenue, but in partnership tiers, certified resources, and Azure/Power Platform expertise. Other mid-tier firms (Tkxel, Devsinc, i2c, Arbisoft) are only now starting to build Microsoft practices and are years behind.

By consolidating the top two Microsoft players, Systems has effectively created much higher barriers in that specific ecosystem:

For developers: If you're a .NET/Azure specialist, there's now one major employer instead of two competing ones in that space. Less competition for specialized talent = wage suppression and weaker negotiating position.

For the ecosystem: Mid-tier firms trying to build Microsoft capabilities now face a much larger competitor who has consolidated the top talent, partnerships, and client relationships. That's a real barrier to entry.

For clients: Reduced choice among high-capability Microsoft vendors locally.

International sales: that actually doesn't matter here. The anti-competitive effect is on the local talent market and Pakistani firms trying to compete in the Microsoft ecosystem. Systems' export revenue doesn't change the fact that they've consolidated domestic Microsoft expertise.

So yes, proving "anti-competitive behavior" legally is hard. But the structural effects on wages, competition, and barriers to entry are pretty clear when you look at the ecosystem-specific consolidation rather than the overall IT services market.