NSR Tech Policy: Amazon’s Grubhub deal: a challenge from regulators is unlikely
In a note published earlier this week, by our partners covering tech infrastructure companies (LINK), Amazon plans to take an equity stake in Grubhub. The size of the stake could be as high as 15%, if certain performance targets are met. As part of the agreement, Amazon Prime members in the United States will be granted free access to one year of Grubhub+. The note emphasized that the deal is an indication of Grubhub’s struggles, and that Uber and Grab are the best names to play in food delivery.
This brief note follows on the tech team’s overview to outline the key regulatory implications of the deal:
- First, we think the equity stake is likely too low to create serious regulatory risk for Amazon. The stake may be as low as 2%, which is unlikely to be viewed as sufficiently meaningful to trigger regulatory intervention. Even if it hits the performance targets and rises to the maximum 15%, it is unlikely to face a strong challenge from regulators. When Amazon acquired a 16% stake in Deliveroo, the UK’s antitrust authority (the Competition Markets Authority, or CMA) investigated the deal. After extensive review, it ultimately found that the deal would not substantially lessen competition, but indicated that if Amazon acquired a higher stake in the future, the CMA might change its view. In the review process, Amazon argued that its 16% stake did not result in it acquiring “material influence” over Deliveroo. It would likely make the same argument here, and its position would be stronger since the equity stake is lower.
- Second, even if regulators were interested in challenging the deal, it would be difficult for them to make the case that it will “substantially lessen” competition. As our partners described in yesterday’s note, Grubhub is struggling relative to its competitors. Regulators might consider whether the combination of the Grubhub and Deliveroo investments would heighten the risk to competition in the market, but even then, the relatively small stakes in each company make that argument difficult.
- Third, we have stated numerous times (LINK) that FTC Chair Lina Khan will likely look for a fact pattern that will enable her to make her mark on antitrust policy, but this isn’t it. Although, in theory, an Amazon merger could be a desirable one for her given her prominent work on that topic, she’s looking for a stronger case than this one.
- Finally, it is noteworthy that Amazon sought to acquire an equity stake rather than to make an outright acquisition. While there may be many business reasons for their decision to pursue that course, the regulatory risk of an acquisition might have been one factor in the decision. If that’s the case, and if sizable minority equity stakes give Big Tech firms some of the competitive advantages they are seeking without the regulatory headaches of an acquisition, more Big Tech companies may pursue this strategy.
Full 12-month historical recommendation changes are available on request
Reports produced by New Street Research LLP, 18th Floor, 100 Bishopsgate, London, EC2M 1GT. 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.