Did the FTC actually... do... anything in this merger? My understanding is that Nvidia called it off because there was no way the UK was going to let their one national champion in chip design be subsumed into an existing American giant. My recollection is that the FTC didn't even file for a preliminary injunction in this case.
I see nothing in the article that suggests Lina Khan claiming that the FTC blocked, or even played a role in blocking, the NVIDIA-ARM merger.
To the extent the headline is making all the commenters here believe that to be the case the headline is clearly incorrect.
Here’s what Lina Khan actually says.
> Khan said that when the $40 billion merger was called off due to “significant regulatory challenges” in 2022, it forced both companies to innovate and create new products.
> “The trajectories of both companies in the wake of this action has illustrated how organic growth and competition can spur firms to further innovate in ways that benefit the business and public alike,” Khan said at the conference.
> The evidence, Khan said, is in the company stock prices.
> “Not only has Nvidia remained the leading AI chipmaker in the AI chip arms race, with a surging stock valuation, but Arm ended up going public and has a forward earnings multiple that is more than double Nvidia’s,” Khan said.
Lina Khan is clearly making the case that regulatory action is actually good for investors and not claiming any sort of credit to the FTC specifically.
What all these comments here only go to show is how few people actually read the articles before commenting on the headlines.
That's an in-house complaint before the FTC's own judge. I'm talking about a request for a preliminary injunction in Federal district court in front of a real judge. The FTC doesn't have the authority to block a transaction unless they're in an Article III court; their in-house proceedings can only unwind a transaction after it closes.
Well, you asked if the FTC did anything and they definitely did something. What credit they can claim for the eventual outcome is a different discussion but the answer to 'did they do anything' appears to be 'yes'.
Sorry, I should have made clear I meant "do anything to block the merger." That's what my reference to a preliminary injunction was about, but I realize this is a tech forum and not a law forum so I should have clarified.
I’m increasingly convinced putting someone as inexperienced as Khan in the seat was a savvy way to throw a bone to anti-merger activist types, who like tough talk more than compromise, while placating the pro-merger donor ones, who are more pragmatic if less principled.
I expect that they coordinate or communicate, so we have no idea what her influence was on the UK initiative. But also the big moves to control the market power of tech has it's critics, this is a victory lap for the idea.
