What’s New: In July, the FTC sued Meta to block its purchase of Within, the maker of Supernatural, a popular VR fitness app. Today, the judge in the case denied the FTC’s petition for a preliminary injunction to block the transaction. The decision was sealed so we don’t know how the judge came to his decision. The Judge separately issued a temporary restraining order blocking Meta from closing the transaction for a week to give time to the FTC to decide whether to appeal his ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The FTC is also already pursuing the case concurrently under its internal ALJ.
Implications: Here are what we think are the major implications.
No new law. As we expected, Meta prevailed. We doubt there will be anything major from an antitrust law perspective.
- That is, attempting to block the deal was, as the FTC admitted, a stretch (LINK).
- The FTC had argued that even though the acquisition target was small, the transaction could be seen as leading to a monopoly down the road.
- Had the FTC won the case, it could have led to a large companies having second thoughts about acquiring any small companies.
What may matter are the reactions. While this decision and the transaction are not anything close to “game changers,” the reactions could be.
- FTC Chair Khan had said she was willing to lose in anticipation that Congress will then see the need to change the law to enable challenges like this.However, we think it will have no impact on Congress and our view that Congress will not act to change antitrust law remains unchanged.
- We think the loss may affect the possibility that the FTC negotiates with Microsoft on the Activision deal.
- Khan may now be more reluctant to risk a second big defeat in court, increasing the odds of a negotiated deal. However, there are many variables, including how the EU and the UK Competition authorities deal with the merger.
- Note: we will soon be publishing a five-part series on the Microsoft/Activision review which will cover this development and other factors in the review.
Impact on companies.
Meta. In an odd way, it's a negativefor Meta as it likely paid more for Within than it is worth.
- It further commits Meta to a sector that investors doubt will pay off.
- But it'sa positivein that it opens thedoor to further transactions, particularly smaller transactions.
- We don’t think the decision will have any bearing on the current FTC litigation against Meta for alleged illegal monopolization.
Amazon. It's a positivefor Amazon, as it increases the odds of either the FTC or the courts allowing the company to proceed with the iRobot and One Medical deals or other small transactions.
Alphabet. It’s a positive for Alphabet in opening the door to small transactions.
- We don’t think the decision will have any bearing on the current DOJ and states’ lawsuits against Google for search and ad-tech monopolization.
Other Big Companies. It's also a positive for other tech companies in that it keeps open the door for small acquisitions.
Full 12-month historical recommendation changes are available on request
Reports produced by New Street Research LLP, 18th Floor, 100 Bishopsgate, London, EC2N 4AG. Tel: +44 20 7375 9111.
New Street Research LLP is authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority and is registered in the United States with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a foreign investment adviser.
Regulatory Disclosures: This research is directed only at persons classified as Professional Clients under the rules of the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’), and must not be re-distributed to Retail Clients as defined in the rules of the FCA.
This research is for our clients only. It is based on current public information which we consider reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete, and it should not be relied on as such. We seek to update our research as appropriate, but various regulations may prevent us from doing so. Most of our reports are published at irregular intervals as appropriate in the analyst's judgment. This research is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction where such an offer or solicitation would be illegal. It does not constitute a personal recommendation or take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situations, or needs of individual clients.
All our research reports are disseminated and available to all clients simultaneously through electronic publication to our website.
New Street Research LLC is neither a registered investment advisor nor a broker/dealer. Subscribers and/or readers are advised that the information contained in this report is not to be construed or relied upon as investment, tax planning, accounting and/or legal advice, nor is it to be construed in any way as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or any other form of investment. All opinions, analyses and information contained herein is based upon sources believed to be reliable and is written in good faith, but no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, is made herein concerning any investment, tax, accounting and/or legal matter or the accuracy, completeness, correctness, timeliness and/or appropriateness of any of the information contained herein. Subscribers and/or readers are further advised that the Company does not necessarily update the information and/or opinions set forth in this and/or any subsequent version of this report. Readers are urged to consult with their own independent professional advisors with respect to any matter herein. All information contained herein and/or this website should be independently verified.
All research is issued under the regulatory oversight of New Street Research LLP.
Copyright © New Street Research LLP
No part of this material may be copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed without the prior written consent of New Street Research LLP.