Antitrust & Competition Technology 2023 Year in Review

Antitrust actions significantly impacted the technology sector in 2023 and are poised to have substantial repercussions in the future, affecting both major tech companies and emerging enterprises. In addition to a focus on the largest technology companies, a prevalent theme in much of the antitrust activity in the tech space in 2023 was the examination of behavior across vertically related products or services. Vertical theories of harm were present in all of the FTC’s tech merger challenges, and those theories were also prevalent in the parallel investigations before the European Commission (EC) and UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), while the DOJ’s, EC’s, and CMA’s cases against Google center on vertical integrations within its search and ad tech business. In the FTC’s, EC’s, and CMA’s cases against Amazon, one of the major complaints involves an alleged tie between Amazon’s vertically related Prime services and logistics services. The EU Digital Markets Act also sets out a host of obligations for designated gatekeepers that govern, among other things, the conduct of digital gatekeepers in vertically related markets, and vertical theories of harm prominently feature in the new US merger guidelines.

On the merger control front, global antitrust authorities opposed a number of transactions involving major tech companies. In the first half of 2023, vertical acquisitions by two tech giants, Meta and Microsoft, faced heavy resistance. Both were challenged by the FTC in court, and Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision faced precarious moments navigating investigations by the EC and CMA, including a block by the CMA prior to the transaction being restructured by the parties.

The FTC rebounded from a series of courtroom setbacks in 2023 to conclude the year by stopping IQVIA’s acquisition of Propel. The district court’s ruling in that case held that the FTC has a low burden in securing a preliminary injunction in Section 7 cases, a ruling that the FTC will surely cite in future challenges.

Other tech deals, including Adobe’s proposed acquisition of Figma and Amazon’s proposed acquisition of iRobot, fell apart amid opposition led by the EC. Overall, 2023 sustained a trend of robust deal enforcement, casting a chilling effect on acquisitions pursued by major tech companies throughout the year.¹

Alongside the challenges to deals, US government enforcers initiated two prominent antitrust actions related to conduct in 2023. In September, the FTC filed a long-anticipated case against Amazon, contesting its price-parity policies and the ties between its Prime services and logistics operations. In January, the DOJ pursued its second monopolization suit against Google, focusing this time on Google’s advertising technology (ad tech) business. Concurrently, the DOJ’s case against Google’s search business proceeded to trial in the fall.

Significant milestones were reached in the Epic Games antitrust cases challenging the app store business models of Apple and Google. In April, the Ninth Circuit upheld Apple’s successful defense against federal antitrust claims, while a jury ruled in favor of Epic in December in a similar case against Google.

Antitrust investigations against big tech players continued apace in Europe and the UK as well. In June 2023, the EC sent a statement of objections to Google regarding alleged abuse of dominance in relation to concerns that the company engaged in self-preferencing of its ad tech business. In July, the EC opened a formal investigation, which remains ongoing, into Microsoft regarding allegations of tying and bundling Teams with Microsoft 365 and Office 365. Microsoft announced changes to its Teams business model in August to address the EC’s concerns.

In relation to its ongoing investigation into alleged exclusionary conduct by Apple in relation to Apple Pay for iOS, the EC has issued a request for comment on commitments offered by Apple.

Meanwhile, Amazon offered commitments to the CMA to address allegations that Amazon favors its own products or logistics services. The commitments would restrict the way Amazon can use rival sellers’ marketplace data, guarantee that all offerings are treated equally when determining which product features in the “buy box,” and allowing third-party sellers to negotiate their own rates with independent providers of Prime delivery services. The commitments echo those offered by Amazon to the EC in 2022 to resolve similar concerns around the buy box feature.

In addition to enforcement, government authorities around the world pursued antitrust objectives in the technology sector through policy actions in 2023. The FTC and DOJ released a draft of updated merger guidelines in July and finalized them in December. The guidelines indicate that the US antitrust agencies had the behavior and features of major tech platforms in mind when writing them. In Europe, the EC began implementing the DMA by designating gatekeepers and getting ready for the conduct prohibitions becoming effective in spring 2024.

Finally, several major antitrust authorities around the world have begun considering their approach to AI and its implications for competition law. Authorities have flagged potential issues that may arise in the development of AI products and have taken various steps, including issuing reports, issuing statements, and opening investigations regarding the emerging industry.

Tech Merger Enforcement

US antitrust enforcers challenged four acquisitions by technology companies in 2023. The acquirers in two of the cases were big tech companies: Meta and Microsoft. The other two challenges involved operators of technology platforms in the mortgage and healthcare industries. All four challenges included theories of harm based on vertical integration.

The FTC relied on a traditional vertical foreclosure theory of harm in its opposition to Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision. Microsoft makes the widely used Xbox video game console and offers the subscription gaming service Xbox Game Pass, which features a cloud gaming option. Activision is the maker of several immensely successful video game franchises, notably the all-time best-selling Call of Duty franchise.

The deal closed in October following extensive regulatory review processes across various jurisdictions that included challenges from two major jurisdictions. In the US, the FTC filed an administrative complaint in December 2022 and a preliminary injunction complaint in June 2023 seeking to block the transaction.² The FTC’s challenge alleged that the acquisition would enable Microsoft to foreclose rival video game consoles and subscription cloud gaming services from access to new Call of Duty games. Following a preliminary injunction trial, the federal district court rejected the FTC’s motion, determining that, while Microsoft had the ability to limit competitors’ access to Call of Duty, the evidence did not show that it had the incentive to do so.³ The court was persuaded by evidence such as Microsoft’s deal model that relied on sales to PlayStation and other platforms and the lack of internal documents contradicting Microsoft’s stated intent not to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox.⁴

Across the Atlantic, the CMA announced its decision to block the transaction in April 2023 over concerns that Microsoft would restrict or limit Activision content on other cloud gaming platforms.⁵ A short while later, the EC granted conditional approval for the deal subject to commitments from Microsoft to make Activision content available to other gaming platforms.⁶ Undeterred and unbroken, in May, Microsoft lodged an appeal against the CMA’s Phase 2 prohibition before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, which was adjourned while Microsoft continued to discuss the terms of the CMA’s Final Order, publication of which had been delayed. The CMA rejected Microsoft’s arguments that there had been material changes to the transaction that would justify acceptance of the commitments it had previously offered. In August, the CMA published its Final Order blocking the deal. On the same day, the CMA launched an investigation into a new transaction proposed by Microsoft, under which Ubisoft would acquire non-EEA cloud streaming rights prior to implementation of the transaction. After Microsoft further undertook to ensure the divestment was fully implemented, the deal was cleared.

Meta’s acquisition of Within closed in 2023 after the FTC lost its challenge to the deal in court.⁷ Meta makes the Oculus, a leading VR hardware device. Within’s main product was Supernatural, a VR fitness app that gave users virtual fitness classes for a monthly fee.⁸ The FTC’s complaint in this case relied on two varieties of potential competition theories of harm — “actual” and “perceived” potential competition.

The FTC’s actual potential competition claim alleged that Meta would have been a rival in the market for VR fitness apps if it had not bought Within. To support this theory, the FTC tried to show at trial that Meta had the “resources, capabilities, and incentives to enter the VR Dedicated Fitness App market” but did not present any evidence that Meta actually intended or planned to enter Within’s market.⁹ The district court ruled in favor of Meta in February 2023 after a three-week trial, dismissing the FTC’s actual potential competition theory as “impermissibly speculative.”¹⁰ The court’s decision, which will likely affect future cases involving potential entry, held, “where the objective evidence is weak or inconclusive and does not strongly point to the feasibility of entry de novo, it is incumbent on the Court to consider the potential entrant’s actual plans of entry for the purposes of ensuring that Section 7 enforcement does not veer into the realm of ephemeral possibilities.”¹¹

The FTC filed a complaint objecting to the acquisition of Black Knight by Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in March 2023. The FTC’s complaint was largely based on horizontal theories of harm. Both Black Knight and ICE were leading providers of loan origination system software (LOS), which mortgage lenders use to manage the mortgage loan origination process. The parties also both offered leading product pricing and eligibility engines (PPEs) that help lenders find the best mortgage rates for potential homebuyers.¹²

The FTC’s challenge of the deal also involved a significant vertical concern because lenders use PPEs and other additional loan services from third parties that are connected to and accessed through LOS platforms. The FTC alleged that the combination of ICE and Black Knight’s LOS and PPE systems, along with other party-owned ancillary services, would give the merged firm the incentive to exclude third-party PPE and ancillary service providers from integration with the merged firm’s LOS, effectively excluding them from the market.¹³

The FTC did not accept Black Knight’s first proposal to sell off Black Knight’s LOS product and sued the company. A few months later, Black Knight agreed to also sell its PPE product, and the parties settled the lawsuit.¹⁴

The FTC’s change of position, from initially rejecting to later approving a divestiture, in this case is interesting given the recent statements of US antitrust authorities on the appropriateness of divestitures. In a 2021 letter to a member of Congress, FTC Chair Khan wrote, “I believe the antitrust agencies should more frequently consider opposing problematic deals outright,”¹⁵and in a June 2022 interview, she said the FTC should not spend a lot of time trying to fix deals through divestitures and that the FTC would “be focusing our resources on litigating, rather than on settling.”¹⁶ Assistant Attorney General Kanter expressed a similar view, saying, “[w]hen the division concludes that a merger is likely to lessen competition, in most situations [the DOJ] should seek a simple injunction to block the transaction.”¹⁷

In practice, the DOJ did not use consent decrees to address its competition issues with mergers in 2023, except in one case: Assa Abloy’s purchase of Spectrum Brands’ hardware and home improvement division. After reaching a settlement in that case, the DOJ claimed that stopping the deal was the only way to avoid competitive harms, but it accepted the consent decree “[b]ased on the totality of circumstances and risks associated with this litigation.”¹⁸

In the healthcare tech space, the FTC launched an administrative lawsuit in July 2023 to stop IQVIA’s acquisition of Propel Media.¹⁹ IQVIA is a global provider of healthcare data, and Propel Media runs a healthcare advertising platform called DeepIntent. DeepIntent lets healthcare product producers market directly to doctors and other healthcare professionals.

As in ICE/Black Knight, the FTC’s challenge relied partly on a horizontal theory of harm. IQVIA had bought Lasso Marketing, another healthcare advertising platform, in 2022. The FTC claimed DeepIntent and Lasso Marketing were two of the top three healthcare advertising platforms.²⁰

The FTC also had a vertical worry that other healthcare advertising platforms rely on IQVIA’s healthcare data as a crucial input. The complaint claimed that the deal would give IQVIA the incentive to hurt competing healthcare advertising platforms by limiting their access to such data, thereby weakening rivals and discouraging new entrants from joining the market.²¹

The FTC secured a preliminary injunction blocking the deal in court, its first such win since 2021.²² In the process it secured a favorable decision regarding its burden of proof in Section 7 preliminary injunction cases. Preliminary injunction hearings have, for the most part, become the de facto means for the FTC to challenge a transaction on the merits. This is because if the FTC wins, parties often walk away from the deal, and the FTC rarely continues to challenge a deal if it loses. As a result, courts’ preliminary injunction rulings typically focus on the merits of the case.

But in the IQVIA/Propel case, the district court disregarded the fact that the parties intended to drop the transaction if the injunction was issued and examined the FTC’s standard for preliminary injunctions in detail. The court ruled that, while the court cannot simply rubber-stamp the FTC’s request for an injunction based on a mere possibility that the merger will violate antitrust laws, the FTC does not need “to prove the merits of its case or to establish a violation of the Clayton Act.”²³ That question, the court ruled, is for the administrative proceeding. Instead, the court must decide “whether the FTC has raised serious questions about the antitrust merits that warrant thorough investigation in the first instance by the FTC.”²⁴ Going forward, this decision and its low burden of proof will likely be referenced by the FTC in other cases where it seeks a preliminary injunction.

Three more tech deals fell apart in 2023 primarily due to antitrust opposition led by European antitrust regulators. In another deal where the parties had a vertical relationship, Amazon’s proposed acquisition of iRobot, the parties abandoned their deal in January 2024 due to a statement of objection and probable challenge by the EC.²⁵ The CMA cleared the deal in Phase 1 without any conditions in June 2023,²⁶ but the EC took the deal to Phase 2, and its statement of objections asserted that Amazon would have the ability and incentive to exclude iRobot’s RVC rivals by limiting or degrading their access to the Amazon marketplace.²⁷

Adobe and Figma announced in December that they mutually agreed to terminate their agreement after facing regulatory hurdles including opposition by the EC. The EC’s case was that the transaction would significantly reduce competition in the market for interactive product design tools, where Figma is the clear market leader and Adobe is one of its largest competitors.²⁸

In September 2023, the EC blocked Booking’s attempt to acquire eTraveli, arguing that the merger would have further strengthened Booking’s leading position in the online hotel booking market within the EEA. This, according to the EC, could have led to less competition and higher prices for both hotels and consumers. Booking proposed behavioral remedies to address the EC’s concerns, including providing customers with an option to book hotels through competing hotel online travel agents on the eTraveli flight offerings screen. The EC found these measures to be insufficient. The decision is notable for its departure from prior practice in non-horizontal mergers with a focus on the risk of leveraging of a dominant position into other markets. Here, the EC pursued a novel theory that examined the potential for the transaction to safeguard and enhance Booking’s ecosystem in a way that could entrench its dominance in its core market, accommodation booking. This important decision — which is now on appeal — highlights a growing appetite among regulators to entertain novel theories of harm to deal with the dynamics of digital markets.

Meta and Microsoft managed to close significant deals despite antitrust opposition in 2023, but there is no sign that global antitrust regulators will ease up on their scrutiny of acquisitions by big tech companies. And this intense enforcement will affect not only the big tech companies but also the smaller ones that hope to be acquired by them. Public reports by the largest tech companies indicate that their acquisition spending dropped sharply in 2023.²⁹ If selling companies are thinking about selling to a big tech player, they need to carefully assess the risks of facing a prolonged investigation and a possible challenge.

Public and Private Antitrust Litigation

Antitrust enforcers were busy litigating conduct claims in 2023. The DOJ’s case against Google’s search business went to trial, and two more major monopolization cases were filed against tech giants, another DOJ case against Google’s ad tech business and an FTC case against Amazon.

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Google over its search engine practices, which DOJ brought in 2020, advanced toward a resolution with a 10-week trial ending in November 2023.³⁰ The DOJ’s lawsuit asserts that Google’s agreements with browsers and mobile phone makers prevented competitors from collecting enough data to challenge Google for users and market share. The DOJ also claims that Google’s 21-year deal with Apple, which sets Google as the default search engine on iPhones and iPads, gave Google monopoly power over search and stopped one of its biggest rivals from entering the market.³¹ The court is expected to issue a decision in this case sometime in 2024.

In February 2023, the DOJ filed a new monopolization case based on Google’s ad tech business. In that case, the DOJ claims that Google engaged in unfair practices that involved acquiring ad tech rivals, abusing its power to make publishers and advertisers use its products, and blocking customers from accessing competing products.³² The court in the Eastern District of Virginia, known for its fast pace, has already scheduled a trial in that case for September 2024.

The FTC and 17 state attorneys general launched a long-anticipated monopolization lawsuit against Amazon in September.³³ The lawsuit claims that Amazon illegally maintains monopoly power in an online superstore market and a market for online marketplace services. Amazon allegedly does this with two practices: 1) actions that prevent sellers from selling at lower prices than those on Amazon through other retailers; and 2) tying Prime eligibility to the use of Amazon’s fulfillment services.³⁴

As we explained in our 2023 Q3 Quarterly Update, the FTC’s case against Amazon may encounter serious challenges as the conduct at issue seems to have reasonable, pro-customer explanations. However, this case is another example of regulators targeting big tech and concern over the interplay between vertically related business lines.

The antitrust battles between Epic Games and Apple and Google over their app store rules advanced in different directions. In April, the Ninth Circuit agreed with a lower court that Apple’s iOS App Store rules banning apps from using any payment methods other than Apple’s did not violate federal antitrust laws.³⁵ It also agreed with the lower court that Apple’s anti-steering rules that forbid app makers from telling customers about payment options outside the app violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, and prohibited Apple from stopping developers from steering users to other payment systems.³⁶

In contrast, a jury sided with Epic on all 11 antitrust claims it made against Google related to its app store.³⁷ There are several possible explanations for why the outcomes were so different for the two major mobile operating system providers. First, Epic was able to have its case against Google heard by a jury because Google requested a jury trial for its counterclaims, while the Apple case was decided by a judge per a joint request by the parties. Second, Apple’s iOS is very much a “walled garden,” meaning that it gives third parties little access and restricted access to its operating system. Google, on the other hand, is more open with its operating system in various ways, such as letting other mobile manufacturers license it. Because Apple could show that its consistent closed system policy everywhere else in its business was a reason for its widespread adoption, it had a stronger argument that limiting payment options was also a pro-competitive feature rather than an anticompetitive bug. Finally, the judge in Google’s case found that Google had wrongly deleted relevant chats. As a result, the judge instructed the jurors that they may assume that missing evidence may have been unfavorable for Google.

Since 2021, prominent technology firms such as Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon have been targets of private damage claims in the UK, with each facing at least one class-action lawsuit. These legal challenges often overlap with conduct currently or previously scrutinized by antitrust authorities. Notably, Google and Apple have come under legal attack by private plaintiffs for their practices surrounding the Play Store and App Store, respectively, mirroring the concerns of antitrust authorities such as the CMA and EC. This trend of private litigation extends beyond the UK, with similar class actions against Google’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store arising in European jurisdictions, including the Netherlands and Portugal. The EU’s Collective Redress Directive introduces the possibility of broader opt-out class-action frameworks, indicating that tech companies might need to gear up for simultaneous legal and regulatory confrontations as well as the emergence of “copycat” class actions across the European Union.

Policy Changes

In parallel with merger enforcement and litigation, antitrust enforcers pursued policy avenues as a means to address future competition issues. In the US, the FTC and DOJ released updated Merger Guidelines for the first time in more than a decade. As discussed in greater detail in our 2023 Q2 Quarterly Update, several new elements of the Merger Guidelines are aimed at and will significantly affect transactions within the tech industry. Among the 11 new Guidelines, five pertain to vertical mergers and multisided platforms, emphasizing the increased focus on transactions related to technology and data.

Of particular significance for technology transactions is Guideline 9. This guideline outlines the agencies’ view of mergers involving multisided platforms, which are predominantly technology driven. It identifies three types of platform-related competition that can be harmed: competition between platforms, competition on a platform, and competition to displace a platform.

The guideline also explains and examines how four different kinds of acquisitions may affect competition. It covers the more conventional concerns that a merger between two platforms would reduce competition between them and that an acquisition of a key input for other platforms could enable the acquirer to block that input from its competitors. The guideline also highlights two more novel theories of harm: first, that a platform’s purchase of a platform participant could entrench the platform’s position by denying network effects from rival platforms. Second, the guideline points out that an acquisition of a company that offers services that help participation on multiple platforms can deprive rivals of platform participants.

The dedication of a specific guideline to multisided platforms signals the US antitrust enforcers’ stance that platform operators pose significant threats to competition. Acquisitions proposed by such companies have been and are likely to continue to be met with skepticism and opposition by US antitrust enforcers.

In Europe, the EC advanced the implementation of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA sets out a list of rules for designated “gatekeepers” to stop them from misusing their market power and to safeguard user privacy. These include bans on merging data from different services, favoring their own services, preinstalling or tying services, and requirements regarding interoperability, portability, and data access. The EC named six tech players as gatekeepers in September under the DMA: Google (Alphabet), Amazon, Apple, TikTok (ByteDance), Meta, and Microsoft, for a total of 22 core platform services. Wrangling over gatekeeper status continues in some cases, while the gatekeepers scrambled to prepare their compliance reports before March 7, 2024. The EC sees the DMA ushering in a new digital architecture in Europe, one that it hopes will, over time, lead to reshaping of the digital markets and an emergence of new business models.³⁸ The EC understands that it will not and cannot be the sole enforcer: it is publicly calling for third parties to help monitor and detect noncompliance over time.

Artificial Intelligence

A number of antitrust agencies across the globe have taken steps to develop their position and strategy related to artificial intelligence. In the UK, the CMA published its initial review of AI foundation models, the technology underpinning common AI programs such as ChatGPT, and their impact on competition and consumer protection. The CMA indicated that the difficulty in developing foundation models would create a real risk of foreclosure in downstream markets that adopt the technology. Similarly, in the US, the FTC stated that generative AI has the potential to be used in unfair methods of competition, such as through the anticompetitive control of key inputs for adjacent markets or through discriminatory/predatory behavior toward consumers. Finally, at the end of 2023, the European Parliament and Council agreed on the EU’s approach to AI that would inform the forthcoming AI Act, which will seek to restrict the use of AI and the data it collects for unfair commercial gain at the cost of consumer welfare.

Looking Ahead to 2024

In 2024, we will closely monitor the developments in the DOJ/Google search case and track the advancements in the DOJ/Google and FTC/Amazon cases. The impact of the implementation of the DMA, including its enforcement and potential expansion, will be substantial for the technology sector. Regulatory action in one of the most prominent emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, is also on our radar, with investigations under way by both the EC and the FTC. Overall, there are no indications that antitrust pressure on big tech will diminish, whether it be in terms of vigilant merger control measures or rigorous conduct enforcement. How successful this vigorous enforcement will be in protecting competition and what impact it will have on dynamism and innovation in the industry will be issues to continue to watch throughout this year and beyond.

---

^[1]Wired, “Google Filing Reveals It Slashed Spending on Acquisitions in 2023,”(Feb. 2, 2024).
^[2] Administrative Part 3 Complaint, In re Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., Docket No. 9412 (August 11, 2022); see also Complaint, FTC v. Microsoft, Case No. 3:23-cv-02880, at 2-3 (June 12, 2023).
^[3] Preliminary Injunction Opinion, FTC v. Microsoft, Case No. 3:23-cv-02880, 2023 WL 4443412, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2023).
^[4] Id. at 33-38.
^[5] UK Competition and Markets Authority, “Microsoft / Activision deal prevented to protect innovation and choice in cloud gaming” (April 26, 2023).
^[6] European Commission, “Mergers: Commission clears acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft, subject to conditions” (May 15, 2023).
^[7] Complaint for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, and Within Unlimited, Case No. 3:22-cv-04325 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2022) (hereinafter “Meta/Within Complaint”).
^[8] Supernatural, available at Get Supernatural | Supernatural.
^[9] Meta/Within decision, at 53.
^[10] Meta/Within decision, at 53.
^[11] Id. at 54.
^[12] Administrative Part 3 Complaint, In re Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and Black Knight, Inc., Docket No. 9413 (March 9, 2023), at 14.
^[13] Id. at 17.
^[14] FTC, “FTC Secures Settlement with ICE and Black Knight Resolving Antitrust Concerns in Mortgage Technology Deal” (Aug. 31, 2023).
^[15] Letter from FTC Commissioner Lina Khan to the Honorable Elizabeth Warren (Aug. 6, 2021).
^[16] AXIOS, “FTC’s new stance: Litigate, don’t negotiate”(June 8, 2022).
^[17] US Department of Justice, “Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Antitrust Division Delivers Remarks to the New York State Bar Association Antitrust Section” (Jan. 24, 2022).
^[18] US Department of Justice, US v. Assa Abloy AB, et. al., 1:22-cv-02791-ACR, Competitive Impact Statement (May 5, 2023).
^[19] Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Sues to Block IQVIA’s Acquisition of Propel Media to Prevent Increased Concentration in Health Care Programmatic Advertising” (July 17, 2023).
^[20] See Complaint for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, FTC v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc. and Propel Media, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06188-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2022), at 3.
^[21] Id. at 3.
^[22] Order & Opinion, FTC v. IQVIA Holdings Inc. and Propel Media, Inc., No. 23 Civ. 06188, 2024 WL 81232 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2024).
^[23] Id. at 24. 
^[24] Id. at 42. 
^[25] Amazon, “Amazon and iRobot Agree to Terminate Pending Acquisition” (Jan. 29, 2024). Goodwin represented iRobot in this transaction.
^[26] UK Competition and Markets Authority “Amazon / iRobot merger inquiry” (April 6, 2023; updated July 24, 2023).
^[27] European Commission, “Commission sends Amazon Statement of Objections over proposed acquisition of iRobot” (Nov. 27, 2023).
^[28] European Commission, “Commission sends Adobe Statement of Objections over proposed acquisition of Figma” (Nov. 17, 2023). 
^[29] Wired, “Google Filing Reveals It Slashed Spending on Acquisitions in 2023”, (Feb. 2, 2024).
^[30] Reuters, “US wraps up antitrust case against Google in historic trial”(Nov. 16, 2023). 
^[31] Id.
^[32] US Department of Justice, “Justice Department Sues Google for Monopolizing Digital Advertising Technologies” (Jan. 24, 2023).
^[33] FTC, “FTC Sues Amazon for Illegally Maintaining Monopoly Power” (Sept. 26, 2023). 
^[34] Id.
^[35] Epic Games v. Apple, No. 21-16506 (9^th Cir April 24, 2023).
^[36] Id.
^[37] Google, “Reaffirming choice and openness on Android and Google Play” (Dec. 18, 2023).
^[38] Olivier Guersent, “Keynote speech at the Annual CRA Brussels Conference” (Dec. 6, 2023).

 

This informational piece, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided on the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin or its lawyers. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.