It also alleges that the two companies are "often two of few remaining options for large-group employers" in a number of big markets, including Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Atlanta. Finally, the suit says the merger would significantly reduce competition in the Affordable Care Act individual exchange market. In its own brief, Anthem responded very simply to all of those allegations: "Denied."

Selective wording

The Justice Department's 14th point highlighted statements made by Anthem and Cigna executives suggesting that they too believed that the merger would reduce competition.

In particular, the suit referred to a 2014 company statement that predicted "perhaps a single significant transaction remaining" in the highly-consolidated health insurance industry, as well as a comment from the company's chief financial officer cautioning colleagues to stop using words like "dominant" and "market share" in statements about the deal.

Anthem also declined to directly confront that charge, saying the Justice Department's use of "selective quotation of language in certain Anthem documents, offered without context, is misleading as framed in the Complaint."

Poor customer service

The Justice Department suit suggests that Anthem is trying to acquire Cigna because the latter has a far superior reputation for customer service. It further alleges that Anthem has had big problems in regards to customer satisfaction. To add insult to injury, the suit alleges that two prospective Cigna customers complained to Cigna, "We hate Anthem and you guys are about to become them."

"Anthem lacks sufficient knowledge and information to respond to the allegations … relating to the quotes attributed to unknown Cigna customers," the company responded.

Has Cigna made Anthem better?

The suit suggests that because Cigna is such a fierce competitor of Anthem's, the latter company has adopted better practices. In particular, it says that Anthem introduced a "level-funded" product that allows smaller large group employers receive refunds at the end of the year if their claims did not exceed the projections. Anthem responded that it was not clear that that was true.

We won't hurt doctors!

It's not just customers that the Justice Department says the merger will hurt, but doctors, hospitals and others in the medical industry. The lower reimbursement rates that Anthem will be able to negotiate as a result of its larger market share will result in "a reduction in consumers' access to medical care," the suit said, predicting that providers would lay off staff or reduce hours.

Anthem acknowledged negotiating lower prices with providers to the benefit of customers, but did not respond to the allegation that the lower prices might harm medical providers.

Anti-merger group projects confidence

The Coalition to Protect Patient Choice, a group backed by a number of left-of-center entities to lobby against big insurance mergers, released a statement Wednesday calling Anthem's court fight a waste of time. The company did not back up many of its denials with evidence, the group pointed out.

"Anthem appears to be gearing up for an 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach to litigation, arguing every single fact and detail," said the statement by Michael DeLong, an attorney with the group.