Acquisitions Blocked by Regulators: Famous Cases

Not every acquisition goes through. When regulators block a deal, the target brand remains independent, at least for now. The blocked deal list reads like a who's who of corporate ambition: deals worth tens of billions abandoned because regulators concluded they would harm competition.

Some blocked deals preserved brand independence and competition. Others left the target company weakened. Some led to alternative deals that reshaped the industry in different ways. The pattern is consistent: regulators have become more aggressive on both sides of the Atlantic, and the brands caught in the middle face an uncertain future.

Amazon-iRobot ($1.7 Billion, 2024)

Amazon announced its acquisition of iRobot in August 2022 for $1.7 billion. The deal would have given Amazon a dominant position in the robot vacuum cleaner market and added a hardware brand to Amazon's smart home portfolio, which already included Alexa and Ring.

The European Commission conducted an in-depth investigation and sent a Statement of Objections to Amazon in November 2023. The Commission's preliminary findings showed that the acquisition would have enabled Amazon to foreclose iRobot's rivals by restricting or degrading access to the Amazon Stores marketplace. Amazon could have delisted rival robot vacuum cleaners, reduced their visibility, limited access to widgets and product labels, or raised advertising costs for competitors.

Amazon called off the deal on January 29, 2024, blaming "undue and disproportionate regulatory hurdles." iRobot shares tumbled 19%. The company remained independent but weakened. CEO Colin Angle stepped down, and iRobot cut 31% of its workforce.

The FTC was also poised to reject the deal before Amazon and iRobot announced they were abandoning it. The block preserved iRobot's independence but at a significant cost to the company's stability.

Adobe-Figma ($20 Billion, 2023)

Adobe announced its acquisition of Figma in September 2022 for $20 billion, the largest software acquisition ever attempted. The cash-and-stock deal would have brought Figma's web-based collaborative design platform into Adobe's Creative Cloud portfolio.

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) concluded in November 2023 that the deal would "harm innovation" and launched an in-depth investigation. The European Commission announced a similar in-depth investigation in August 2023. The DOJ was also scrutinising the deal.

Adobe abandoned the acquisition on December 18, 2023. Adobe and Figma issued a joint statement saying there was "no clear path to receive necessary regulatory approvals from the European Commission and the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority." Adobe paid Figma a $1 billion termination fee, as contractually required.

Figma remained independent and continued growing. The block is often cited as evidence that regulators can preserve competition in tech markets by preventing dominant companies from acquiring nascent rivals. Figma's CEO Dylan Field said: "It's not the outcome we had hoped for, but despite thousands of hours spent with regulators around the world detailing differences between our businesses, our products, and the markets we serve, we no longer see a path toward regulatory approval of the deal."

PPG-AkzoNobel ($27 Billion, 2017)

PPG launched a hostile bid for AkzoNobel in March 2017. PPG made three offers, with the final bid valuing AkzoNobel at approximately $27 billion. AkzoNobel rejected all three offers.

The rejection was not primarily driven by antitrust regulators but by a Dutch stichting, an anti-takeover foundation that has the power to block hostile acquisitions of Dutch companies. The stichting exercised its rights to prevent PPG from proceeding. PPG walked away in April 2017.

AkzoNobel later spun off its Specialty Chemicals business (which became Nouryon) to focus on paints and coatings. The failed PPG bid demonstrated how European anti-takeover mechanisms can protect brand portfolios from unwanted acquisition, even when the financial offer is attractive.

For more on AkzoNobel's subsequent ownership journey, see our analysis of paint brand ownership.

Nippon Paint-Sherwin-Williams-AkzoNobel (EUR12.5 Billion, 2026)

In a deal that echoed the 2017 PPG attempt, Nippon Paint and Sherwin-Williams jointly bid for AkzoNobel in 2026. The structure was a break-up bid: Nippon Paint would take AkzoNobel's Decorative Paints and Industrial Coatings businesses, while Sherwin-Williams would take the Automotive and Specialty Coatings, Marine and Protective Coatings, and Powder Coatings businesses.

Nippon Paint submitted an initial proposal on April 16, 2026, at EUR73 per share, valuing AkzoNobel at EUR12.5 billion. AkzoNobel rejected it on April 22. A revised proposal was submitted on April 29 and rejected on May 1.

AkzoNobel's Board of Management and Supervisory Board concluded that the proposal did not qualify as a "Superior Proposal" under AkzoNobel's existing merger agreement with Axalta Coating Systems. The boards found that the indicative offer price "did not come close to adequately reflecting the value of AkzoNobel and its long-term prospects," that the proposal provided "insufficient deal certainty" regarding regulatory clearances and the separation of businesses, and that stakeholder interests were not adequately safeguarded.

Nippon Paint and Sherwin-Williams ended their pursuit on June 3, 2026. AkzoNobel is proceeding with its merger of equals with Axalta, creating a combined company with approximately $25 billion in enterprise value. AkzoNobel shareholders voted in favour of the Axalta merger on June 24, 2026.

Halliburton-Baker Hughes ($35 Billion, 2016)

Halliburton announced its acquisition of Baker Hughes in November 2014 for $35 billion. The deal would have combined the second and third largest oilfield services companies in the world.

The DOJ sued to block the deal in April 2016, arguing that it would reduce competition in over 20 product markets, including drilling fluids, cementing services, and well completion tools. Halliburton abandoned the deal in May 2016, paying Baker Hughes a $3.5 billion termination fee.

Baker Hughes remained independent and later merged with GE Oil and Gas in 2017. The combined entity was spun off as Baker Hughes Co. in 2019. The block preserved Baker Hughes as an independent competitor in the oilfield services market.

AT&T-T-Mobile ($39 Billion, 2011)

AT&T announced its acquisition of T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom in March 2011 for $39 billion. The deal would have created the largest wireless carrier in the United States, combining AT&T and T-Mobile to surpass Verizon in market share.

The DOJ sued to block the deal in August 2011, arguing that it would reduce competition and raise prices for consumers. The FCC also opposed the deal. AT&T withdrew its bid in December 2011, paying Deutsche Telekom a $4 billion breakup fee.

T-Mobile remained independent and later merged with Sprint in 2020, a deal that was approved with conditions. The block of the AT&T-T-Mobile deal arguably preserved T-Mobile as a competitive force in the wireless market. T-Mobile went on to become the third major carrier and eventually surpassed AT&T in market capitalisation.

Blockbuster-Hollywood Video (2004)

The FTC blocked Blockbuster's hostile bid for Hollywood Entertainment, the parent company of Hollywood Video, in 2004. The FTC argued that the merger would reduce competition in the video rental market.

Both companies later went bankrupt. Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy in 2010, and Hollywood Video also filed for bankruptcy in 2010. The block preserved competition in the physical video rental market, but the market moved online, making the competitive concern moot. Netflix and streaming services ultimately replaced both companies.

This case illustrates a limitation of antitrust enforcement: regulators can preserve competition in a market, but they cannot predict technological disruption that makes the market itself obsolete.

The Pattern: What Gets Blocked and Why

Several patterns emerge from the blocked deals:

Horizontal mergers (direct competitors) face the most scrutiny. Amazon-iRobot, Halliburton-Baker Hughes, and AT&T-T-Mobile were all horizontal mergers.

Vertical mergers (supplier-customer) are increasingly challenged. The Amazon-iRobot deal had vertical elements because Amazon is both a marketplace and a product seller.

Tech acquisitions face growing scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic. The Adobe-Figma block shows that regulators are willing to prevent dominant companies from acquiring nascent rivals, even when the companies argue they operate in different markets.

Cross-border deals involving Chinese firms face near-automatic opposition in strategic sectors. CFIUS and the Connected Vehicle Rule have effectively barred Chinese acquisitions of US brands in tech and automotive sectors.

EU regulators tend to demand more divestitures than US regulators. The UK CMA has become increasingly aggressive post-Brexit, as the Adobe-Figma case demonstrates.

What This Means for Consumers

Blocked deals preserve brand independence and competition. But the consumer benefit depends on whether the independent brand can actually compete:

• Figma thrived after the Adobe deal was blocked, continuing to grow and innovate as an independent company. Consumers benefited from preserved competition in design tools.
• iRobot struggled after the Amazon deal was blocked. The company lost 31% of its workforce and its CEO stepped down. Independence preserved competition but weakened the company.
• AkzoNobel rejected the Nippon Paint/Sherwin-Williams bid and is proceeding with an Axalta merger. The outcome is a different consolidation, not independence.
• T-Mobile thrived after the AT&T deal was blocked, eventually merging with Sprint and becoming a stronger competitor to AT&T and Verizon.
• Blockbuster and Hollywood Video both went bankrupt despite the blocked deal. The market moved online, making the antitrust concern irrelevant.

The lesson is that blocking a deal does not guarantee consumer benefit. The independent brand must be strong enough to compete, and the market itself must remain relevant.

For more on antitrust enforcement, see our analysis of how government policy shapes brand ownership and brands broken up by antitrust regulators.

FAQ

Can the government block a brand acquisition?

Yes. In the United States, the FTC and DOJ can block acquisitions that would substantially lessen competition. In the European Union, the European Commission can block acquisitions that would significantly impede effective competition. In the United Kingdom, the CMA can block acquisitions that would reduce competition. Regulators can also require divestitures or behavioural conditions as alternatives to blocking.

What happens when a merger is blocked?

When a merger is blocked, the acquiring company must either abandon the deal, propose remedies (such as divesting certain brands or business units), or challenge the regulator in court. If the deal is abandoned, the target company remains independent. The acquiring company typically pays a termination fee specified in the merger agreement. For example, Adobe paid Figma a $1 billion termination fee when their deal was abandoned.

Why was Amazon-iRobot blocked?

The European Commission concluded that Amazon's acquisition of iRobot would have enabled Amazon to foreclose iRobot's rivals by restricting or degrading their access to the Amazon Stores marketplace. Amazon could have delisted rival robot vacuum cleaners, reduced their visibility, or raised their advertising costs. The FTC was also prepared to block the deal. Amazon abandoned the acquisition in January 2024.

What is the biggest merger ever blocked?

The AT&T-T-Mobile deal ($39 billion) and the Halliburton-Baker Hughes deal ($35 billion) are among the largest mergers ever blocked by regulators. The Adobe-Figma deal ($20 billion) is the largest software acquisition ever blocked. The proposed Nippon Paint-Sherwin-Williams bid for AkzoNobel (EUR12.5 billion) was rejected by AkzoNobel's board rather than blocked by regulators, though regulatory concerns were a factor in the rejection.

Conclusion

Blocked acquisitions reveal the limits of corporate ambition. When regulators say no, brands stay independent. Sometimes that independence leads to growth and innovation, as with Figma and T-Mobile. Sometimes it leads to decline, as with iRobot. And sometimes the market moves on entirely, as with Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.

The pattern is clear: regulators are becoming more aggressive, particularly in tech markets. The Adobe-Figma block, the Amazon-iRobot block, and the pending Google and Meta cases all signal a shift toward stricter enforcement. For companies with large brand portfolios, the message is that not every acquisition will be approved. For consumers, the question is whether preserved independence actually leads to better products and lower prices.

Want to learn more? Read about brands broken up by antitrust regulators, explore how lobbying protects big brand portfolios, or browse our complete guide to tech company acquisitions.

Sources

1. Reuters. "Adobe shelves $20 bln Figma deal after hitting regulatory roadblocks." December 18, 2023. reuters.com 2. Reuters. "Amazon, Roomba-parent iRobot abandon $1.4 billion merger deal." January 29, 2024. reuters.com 3. European Commission. "Statement by Executive Vice-President Vestager on Amazon and iRobot transaction." January 2024. ec.europa.eu 4. AkzoNobel. "AkzoNobel to release SEC Form F-4 detailing its proposed merger with Axalta." May 2026. akzonobel.com 5. Bloomberg. "Nippon Paint and Sherwin-Williams End Pursuit of Akzo Nobel." June 3, 2026. bloomberg.com 6. TechCrunch. "Adobe and Figma end $20B acquisition plans after regulatory headwinds in Europe." December 2023. techcrunch.com

All brand ownership data verified through WhoBrands.com's proprietary research methodology. Last updated: May 19, 2026.