The FTC uses the Consumer Welfare Standard to decide antitrust cases, which means they have to show that a proposed merger would cause tangible harm to consumers. If "reducing competition" was the standard then all buyouts/mergers would be illegal since they all necessarily reduce competition.
This doesn't deserve to be downvoted. Competition is crucial for healthy markets, and the only effect of buyouts and mergers is to consolidate business and decrease competition. If Adobe wants Figma's product, then they can do business with Figma and license it from them. Stop normalizing monopolistic behavior.
> the only effect of buyouts and mergers is to consolidate business and decrease competition
Acquisitions also preserve value in businesses that would otherwise shut down (now or are on a path to). They can create a combined business that's better than the sum of its parts. For example, Apple acquiring Next.
Pro-competition / anti-monopoly doesn't require throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Did they use the Consumer Welfare Standard to block Visa's acquisition of Plaid? Seems like the main reasoning they used was because it was a strategic buy rather than a financially sound one. (and the finances of this deal pretty much mirror Plaids)
That's what they have used in the past, and are not bound to it. If you read any of Lina Khan's work, it's clear that they'll take a more holistic view of the impact of lack of competition.
That's a good point, it's important to note the current FTC chair is working to change the standards that are used. I'm excited to see how that pans out. I think the lack of antitrust enforcement in recent decades is a really underrated problem in American governance.
Consumer welfare standard is not a law enacted by Congress its just something a lawyer named Robert Bork that was rejected from the Supreme Court popularized in the 70s. It was pre-internet and couldn’t comprehend platform firms like Amazon that price below cost for years to win a market and kill competition
