01 / Industry under examination

Regulatory pressure forced Adobe to abandon its $20 billion acquisition of Figma

      Adobe Creative Cloud, Adobe XD, and Figma
      2022–2023
      Monopoly & Antitrust
      Archive: verified
      4/5 wildness
    

Adobe announced a $20 billion agreement to acquire collaborative design platform Figma on September 15, 2022. The transaction would have combined Figma, a major browser-based design and prototyping product, with Adobe’s established Creative Cloud ecosystem and Adobe XD competitor. The supplied account says Adobe already held an almost monopolistic position in creative and design software, prompting concerns in the United States and European Union that the acquisition would remove an important independent rival and give Adobe excessive control over a central design workflow.

Regulatory scrutiny intensified after the announcement, and Adobe and Figma called off the merger in December 2023, citing the challenges of obtaining approval. Under their agreement, Adobe paid Figma a $1 billion termination fee. The collapse demonstrated that competition authorities were prepared to challenge a major technology acquisition even before the target reached the scale of a traditional incumbent, and it preserved Figma as an independent competitor in collaborative design software.

Follow the sources:

Adobe Inc. - Wikipedia

← Back to Technology Archive

02 / Daily Briefing

Synchronized UTC selection.
Rotates daily across the archive.

Regulatory pressure forced Adobe to abandon its $20 billion acquisition of Figma

Archive Record · 2022–2023

03 / The Archive

687 stories indexed
Filter by sector or keyword.

Monopoly & Antitrust1760s–1780s

East India Company expelled critic after Bengal officials restricted private trade and wielded arbitrary power

British East India Company; William Bolts

After the East India Company’s victory at Plassey in June 1757, its administration of Bengal expanded the power of a private corporation over trade and local governance. William Bolts, a company employee and later an independent merchant, worked in Calcutta and Benares, where he traded in woolens, saltpeter, opium, cotton, and diamonds. In 1768 he came into conflict with Company officials over private commerce, which employees were officially forbidden to conduct. He announced plans for a Calcutta newspaper containing information that he said concerned the public, but officials ordered him to leave Bengal. They also declared him bankrupt, a decision Bolts said caused the “irretrievable loss” of his fortune. Bolts published Considerations on India Affairs in 1772, accusing the Company’s Bengal authorities of arbitrary power and describing the circumstances of his deportation. The book circulated widely and was translated into French, becoming an important contemporary account of Company rule. The Company continued trying to obstruct his independent Austrian-backed trading venture in India; its directors instructed officials in 1782 not to give offense to Austrian subjects only after urgent representations from Austria’s ambassador in London. The episode illustrates how a chartered monopoly could suppress commercial rivals and hostile information while exercising quasi-governmental authority, although the source does not report a modern court judgment or financial penalty against the Company for these actions.

Archive: verified ↗

Monopoly & Antitrust2000s–2010s

Kryvorizhstal’s $800 Million Privatization Was Reversed Before a $4.8 Billion Resale

Kryvorizhstal, System Capital Management, Rinat Akhmetov and Viktor Pinchuk

In 2004, Rinat Akhmetov and Viktor Pinchuk acquired the Ukrainian steel producer Kryvorizhstal for approximately $800 million. The privatization became a symbol of Ukraine’s oligarch-era asset sales, with critics arguing that politically connected domestic buyers obtained a strategic industrial company under terms that did not reflect its full market value. The source does not establish that Akhmetov or Pinchuk were convicted of fraud, nor does it provide a final court finding that the transaction itself was criminal. After Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, the state reversed the privatization and held a new auction in 2005. Mittal Steel won with a bid of $4.8 billion—six times the previous sale price—turning the episode into a prominent example of how political influence and weak privatization oversight could transfer control of major infrastructure at a steep discount. The source also reports that SCM businesses won 31% of all Ukrainian state tenders in January 2014, reinforcing longstanding criticism that the group benefited from political access and market concentration. The lasting consequence was intensified scrutiny of oligarchic ownership and the legitimacy of post-Soviet privatizations in Ukraine.

Archive: verified ↗

Monopoly & Antitrust1970s–1980s

EEC Confidentiality Failure Exposed Hoffmann-La Roche Vitamin Price-Fixing Scheme

Hoffmann-La Roche vitamins

In 1973, Stanley George Adams, a senior executive at Swiss pharmaceutical company Hoffmann-La Roche, found documents indicating that the company was coordinating to fix vitamin prices and artificially inflate them. Adams gave the documents to the European Economic Community’s competition authorities, relying on Switzerland’s free-trade agreement with the EEC despite Switzerland not being an EEC member. The disclosure implicated a major pharmaceutical supplier in conduct that undermined competition and raised prices for customers. The EEC failed to protect Adams’s identity and passed documents bearing his name to Hoffmann-La Roche. Swiss authorities subsequently arrested and charged him with industrial espionage and theft; his wife was told he faced up to 20 years in prison and later died by suicide. Adams ultimately served six months in a Swiss prison before fleeing to the United Kingdom. After a campaign supported by Labour MPs including John Prescott, the EEC agreed in 1985 to pay him £200,000—about 40% of his total costs—while the episode became a landmark example of the personal danger created when competition regulators mishandle whistleblower confidentiality.

Archive: verified ↗

Monopoly & Antitrust2014

Comcast’s $45.2 Billion Time Warner Cable Bid Triggered a Major Antitrust Backlash

Comcast, Time Warner Cable

On February 12, 2014, Comcast disclosed plans to acquire Time Warner Cable for approximately $45.2 billion; Time Warner Cable agreed the following day. The transaction would have expanded Comcast’s already dominant U.S. cable footprint into major markets including New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas–Fort Worth, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Charlotte, San Diego, and San Antonio. Comcast was already described as the largest U.S. home Internet provider and the second-largest cable company by subscribers, prompting concern that the merger would further reduce competition in local broadband markets. Critics argued that combining the country’s largest cable operator with another major provider would give Comcast greater leverage over television networks in rebroadcast-fee negotiations and over Internet carriers through peering agreements. The company’s ownership of NBCUniversal also raised concerns about vertically integrated control of both content and distribution. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on April 9, 2014, while the House Judiciary Committee planned its own review; critics also scrutinized FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s former leadership of major cable and wireless lobbying groups and Comcast’s political donations. The proposed acquisition was ultimately scuttled amid regulatory and antitrust opposition, preserving Time Warner Cable as an independent company at the time.

Archive: verified ↗

Monopoly & Antitrust2022–2023

Adobe abandoned its $20 billion Figma acquisition after U.S. and EU antitrust scrutiny

Adobe and Figma

Adobe announced a $20 billion agreement to acquire Figma on September 15, 2022, pursuing the leading collaborative design platform and a major competitor to Adobe XD. The transaction immediately drew scrutiny from U.S. and European Union regulators because Adobe already held a dominant position in creative and design software. Regulators and market participants were concerned that Adobe could eliminate a fast-growing rival, control a critical collaborative-design product, and reduce future competition in tools used by professional designers and businesses. In December 2023, Adobe and Figma terminated the transaction, citing the regulatory challenges and concluding that approval was unlikely. Under the merger agreement, Adobe paid Figma a $1 billion termination fee. The failed acquisition became a prominent example of regulators challenging a technology merger before completion, particularly where an established incumbent sought to purchase an important adjacent competitor rather than merely expand through internal product development.

Archive: verified ↗

Monopoly & Antitrust2010s

2013 Senate Bill Sought Federal Protection for Antitrust Whistleblowers Facing Retaliation

Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2013 (S. 42)

The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2013 addressed a gap in U.S. enforcement: employees who exposed price fixing or related criminal conduct could face workplace retaliation without a dedicated federal protection mechanism. The bill was written in response to a July 2011 Government Accountability Office report on whistleblowing and price fixing. It would have prohibited employers from firing or discriminating against workers who reported antitrust violations to their employer or the federal government, or who assisted an investigation. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy introduced S. 42 on January 22, 2013, and the legislation was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On November 4, 2013, the Senate approved it by unanimous consent. The proposed process required whistleblowers to file first with the Department of Labor; if no final decision came within 180 days, they could sue in federal court and seek relief restoring them financially. The National Whistleblowers Center supported the bill, with executive director Stephen Kohn calling it a step toward closing a loophole in existing protections. The supplied source identifies S. 42 as a bill rather than documenting enactment into law.

Archive: verified ↗

04 / Integration & SDK

Integrate Darkside into your app.

Deploy embeddable web components or consume JSON APIs to power research portals, terminal widgets, and editorial sidebars.

Daily Briefing Web Component

<script src="https://darkside.wiki/daily-technology-widget.js" async></script>
<darkside-daily-technology></darkside-daily-technology>

Custom Embed Options

<script src="https://darkside.wiki/technology-widget.js" async></script>
<darkside-technology-widget data-category="Surveillance & Privacy"></darkside-technology-widget>

REST API Endpoint

GET https://darkside.wiki/api/technology/facts?category=Monopoly+%26+Antitrust&limit=10
GET https://darkside.wiki/api/technology/widget/daily