CBA's move to take control of Aussie Home Loans may yet be blocked or reshaped by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The deal is subject to the competition regulator's approval and the ACCC is expected to examine whether it will substantially lessen competition in the mortgage broking market. Aussie ranks second among broking groups in Australia. Australian Finance Group is the largest, with a loan portfolio of more than $70 billion, and Mortgage Choice is the third-largest, with $45 billion.Aussie CEO John Symond said yesterday that his firm would continue to compete against the Big Four banks and that "it's business as usual for Aussie."But the passing of control of a major broking player, at a time when the Big Four are entrenching their market dominance, makes some ACCC scrutiny likely.ACCC spokesman Duncan Harrod told the Herald-Sun newspaper that the regulator was "monitoring developments" but he did not commit to a review of the deal.Last night, Lateral Economics' CEO, Dr Nicholas Gruen, predicted that the CBA would eventually turn Aussie Home Loans from an independent broker into a CBA sales channel. Gruen is also the founder and CEO of Peach Home Loans.Gruen said it would not be in the CBA's interest to skew Aussie's recommendations towards CBA products, but added that the bank was "probably too stupid not to do it."The ACCC looked at a similar transaction in 2009 when it reviewed a proposal by National Australia Bank to acquire the mortgage management business of Challenger Financial Services.The Challenger assets included three broker businesses - PLAN, FAST and Choice - as well as a white-label lending business and an established mortgage portfolio.The ACCC looked at whether, and to what extent, NAB would have the ability and incentive to influence aligned brokers to write more loans originated by NAB and exclude rivals, thereby lessening competition. The NAB deal came at a time when securitisation markets had collapsed and non-bank lenders were struggling to remain viable. The ACCC took this into account, saying that Challenger's competitive position had been weakened by tough funding conditions.In the end, it concluded that the merger was not likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition, even in circumstances where Challenger returned to being a vigorous competitor.