I'm no fan of Google buying up Fitbit but how are you going to prove that an acquisition/merger is due to data?
You're going to have to codify these regulations and big companies with lots of lawyers are going to find slippery language to get by unless you have something as clear and firm as "every data subject in Fitbit's database must opt-in to Google having access to it."
"WhatsApp has made a number of promises about the limited nature of the data it collects, maintains, and shares with third parties -promises that exceed the protections currently promised to Facebook users. We want to make clear that, regardless of the acquisition, WhatsApp must continue to honor these promises to consumers. Further, if the acquisition is completed and WhatsApp fails to honor these promises, both companies could be in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act"
Then in 2016 WhatsApp went ahead and shared all that data with Facebook . Nothing happened to either party, the FTC did nothing.
So I think your question of "how do we codify what it means for a company to acquire someone for their data" might be too optimistic - we could codify it, not allow companies to share data when merging, and they can still do it anyway.
I would hope that interfaces to Apple health, etc. that work through Bluetooth will continue to work, but they still require the mobile app to facilitate it, and as far as google is concerned it’s now living on borrowed time. Two years from now and it’ll be in the graveyard along with everything else.
What do you do about that except give in and let Google acquire even more aspects of your life to resell it, or abandon the tech and produce more waste?
You simply shouldn't be allowed to sell physical objects forcibly linked to network services.
i.e. vendors need to publish APIs and unlock procedures in order to participate in the market.
Google Fit integrates with Apple Health so I'm not sure there's an incentive to break anything here.
Is the concern that the user doesn't get an explicit $ amount if they opt-in to transfer their data to a new service?
Is there any possibility that the acquirers will end up servicing the user in a better way? or do you think that these organizations will chose the most user-hostile path by providing worse service, etc?
Fitbit was profitable. Sure, it wasn't hyper-growth, nor was it earning insane advertiser money, but it didn't have to be those things. Fitbit had best-in-class fitness tracking hardware and software that worked cross-platform.
Fitbit should have never IPO'd, focused on reducing operational costs, and turned into a lifestyle business. They were never destined to join FAANG.
The focus on tech companies is unwarranted as unlike other sectors no one's been hurt by these companies all the "harms" these policies are based of are hypothetical.
And by the way reuters are the ones making this about google.