Why tech foes are psyched the UK told Meta to sell Giphy

Meta’s enemies have long called for the company to be broken up. Now the U.K. has ordered Giphy spun off — and leapt into the kind of antitrust analysis that disturbs Big Tech.

Giphy logo displayed on a phone screen, along with the reflection of a Meta logo displayed on a laptop screen.

U.S. tech skeptics see international competition enforcers taking aggressive action against companies.

Photo: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Big Tech foes in the U.S. woke up this week feeling a little envious of the United Kingdom: On Tuesday, the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority ordered Meta, formerly known as Facebook, to sell Giphy to address concerns about the impact of the deal on competition.

For reasons big and small, that decision moves us one step closer to the world that champions of bringing down the competition hammer on Meta and other Big Tech companies want to see in the U.S.

Tech skeptics have for years rallied around calls to break up Facebook, even as they know any path to do so through the U.S. courts is unsure and would, at best, take years. The U.K. regulator, meanwhile, ordered Meta to unwind the $315 million purchase of Giphy, just a year and a half after Facebook said it would buy the search engine, hosting and sharing platform for animated GIF images.

“Facebook built its monopoly power through a series of brazenly anticompetitive acquisitions, of which Giphy is a great example,” said Robyn Shapiro, director of communications for the American Economic Liberties Project, a group advocating for the expansion of antitrust thinking to curb tech companies. “The U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority is right to unwind this illegal merger.”

Meta can still appeal the decision, and said it is considering doing so. But even aside from achieving a partial breakup, the CMA took on the deal in a way that advocates for increased competitive scrutiny liked a whole lot.

The decision, after all, marks a rare attempt to reverse a Big Tech deal. Digital giants such as Meta, Google and Amazon have often grown by making many small but deeply tactical acquisitions. Until recently, however, antitrust enforcers rarely paid attention to any individual transaction that appeared to have only a nominal financial value. In many cases, the companies didn’t even have to report the purchases to regulators: For example, Giphy paid a dividend to investors ahead of the transactions that lowered the company’s assets enough that Facebook wasn’t even required to report the deal to competition regulators.

“This is a problem that’s probably especially acute with tech,” said Alex Petros, policy counsel at Public Knowledge, a think tank that calls for more antitrust scrutiny of tech companies. “There are a lot of companies, like Giphy for example, that can have a lot of users [and] be a potential internet bottleneck without having a huge dollar value.”

Petros said the CMA’s analysis particularly reflected the ways past antitrust doctrine missed issues that are unique to the tech industry. Enforcers, for instance, have previously often doubted a small company could present a clear competitive threat to a huge one. The U.K. regulator had explicitly called Giphy “a potential challenger to Facebook” due to its “innovative” approach to digital display advertising, which allowed brands to promote themselves with GIFs before Facebook shut the service down.

Although U.S. antitrust analysis is concerned with acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition, Big Tech critics say enforcers have taken too narrow a view of what kinds of firms might constitute competitive threats to tech giants with expansive business models. Critics also say competition authorities have been too shy about projecting into the future and have often overlooked transactions involving firms that are in the midst of the kind of runaway growth that can occur with digital businesses.

U.S. enforcers have recently caught up to some of these criticisms. The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against Facebook about a year ago, alleging the company engaged in a pattern of anticompetitive acquisitions of small rivals with high potential. The FTC is also seeking to break up Meta by unwinding its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram.

The lawsuit’s outcome is far from guaranteed, however, particularly after a judge threw out the FTC’s first complaint over the summer, and the clash is almost certain to spend several years in a lengthy appeals process.

Twisting up

Meta has previously said its investments in WhatsApp and Instagram are what made the apps so successful, and has suggested neither was on a trajectory to challenge Facebook. The company made the same claim for Giphy. “Both consumers and GIPHY are better off with the support of our infrastructure, talent, and resources,” the company said in a statement. The CMA also said Facebook had argued “it was likely that GIPHY would have become a significantly weakened business had it not been bought by Facebook.”

The U.K. regulator went beyond framing Meta and Giphy as head-to-head competitors, and considered the possibility that Meta could use Giphy to hurt TikTok, Twitter, Snap and other rivals by denying or limiting their access to GIFs. The analysis took seriously the notion that the deal would mean the larger company could exert its power in the social media supply chain to hurt competitors, the way a shoe manufacturer might buy a company selling laces and then cut off rival footwear makers.

In antitrust-speak, such arrangements are said to be “vertical” deals, rather than horizontal relationships between direct competitors. Since the late 1970s, competition law practitioners influenced by conservative jurist Robert Bork have argued that this kind of integration is less likely to be anticompetitive than deals where two companies producing the same thing merge. Supporters and scholars in favor of this legal theory say such deals don’t eliminate competitors, but instead tend to create savings that companies can pass on to customers. Businesses have continued to argue vertical arrangements don’t necessarily offer tech much additional power.

“Giphy no more has a monopoly over GIFs than Chipotle has a monopoly over burritos,” Adam Kovacevich, a former Google policy official who now runs a trade association for Big Tech companies, said in a tweet.

The CMA argued, however, that Facebook had “an incentive to foreclose its rivals from access to Giphy” and would face few costs for doing so.

Skepticism of vertical arrangements has been growing on both sides of the Atlantic as well as both sides of the aisle in the U.S., particularly as tech companies have drastically expanded their vertical integration. In 2020, the FTC, which was then led by Republicans, revamped its guidelines on the practice and elaborated on new potential areas of harm to consider during merger review. The commission’s Democrats complained the new approach still treated vertical deals as too likely to be beneficial.

In September, the FTC, now led by Democratic chair Lina Khan, rescinded the guidance, and the Justice Department, which also enforces competition law, announced it was undertaking a “careful review” of its guidelines “to ensure they are appropriately skeptical of harmful mergers.”

Petros of Public Knowledge praised the way the U.K. looked at the vertical components of the Giphy deal and said he hoped the regulator’s conclusions could provide a model in the U.S. — particularly with Khan in charge at the FTC and Jonathan Kanter, another favorite of tech skeptics, having received Senate approval to be the next antitrust head at the Justice Department.

“For the longest time, vertical deals were just kind of waved through,” Petros said. “That’s very much changing, and I think that’s a really good thing and something that I hope U.S. enforcers take note of.”


Apple's new payments tech won't kill Square

It could be used in place of the Square dongle, but it's far short of a full-fledged payments service.

The Apple system would reportedly only handle contactless payments.

Photo: Nathan Dumlao/Unsplash

Apple is preparing a product to enable merchants to accept contactless payments via iPhones without additional hardware, according to Bloomberg.

While this may seem like a move to compete with Block and its Square merchant unit in point-of-sale payments, that’s unlikely. The Apple service is using technology from its acquisition of Mobeewave in 2020 that enables contactless payments using NFC technology.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Sponsored Content

A CCO’s viewpoint on top enterprise priorities in 2022

The 2022 non-predictions guide to what your enterprise is working on starting this week

As Honeywell’s global chief commercial officer, I am privileged to have the vantage point of seeing the demands, challenges and dynamics that customers across the many sectors we cater to are experiencing and sharing.

This past year has brought upon all businesses and enterprises an unparalleled change and challenge. This was the case at Honeywell, for example, a company with a legacy in innovation and technology for over a century. When I joined the company just months before the pandemic hit we were already in the midst of an intense transformation under the leadership of CEO Darius Adamczyk. This transformation spanned our portfolio and business units. We were already actively working on products and solutions in advanced phases of rollouts that the world has shown a need and demand for pre-pandemic. Those included solutions in edge intelligence, remote operations, quantum computing, warehouse automation, building technologies, safety and health monitoring and of course ESG and climate tech which was based on our exceptional success over the previous decade.

Keep Reading Show less
Jeff Kimbell
Jeff Kimbell is Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at Honeywell. In this role, he has broad responsibilities to drive organic growth by enhancing global sales and marketing capabilities. Jeff has nearly three decades of leadership experience. Prior to joining Honeywell in 2019, Jeff served as a Partner in the Transformation Practice at McKinsey & Company, where he worked with companies facing operational and financial challenges and undergoing “good to great” transformations. Before that, he was an Operating Partner at Silver Lake Partners, a global leader in technology and held a similar position at Cerberus Capital LP. Jeff started his career as a Manufacturing Team Manager and Engineering Project Manager at Procter & Gamble before becoming a strategy consultant at Bain & Company and holding executive roles at Dell EMC and Transamerica Corporation. Jeff earned a B.S. in electrical engineering at Kansas State University and an M.B.A. at Dartmouth College.

Why does China's '996' overtime culture persist?

A Tencent worker’s open criticism shows why this work schedule is hard to change in Chinese tech.

Excessive overtime is one of the plights Chinese workers are grappling with across sectors.

Photo: VCG/VCG via Getty Images

Workers were skeptical when Chinese Big Tech called off its notorious and prevalent overtime policy: “996,” a 12-hour, six-day work schedule. They were right to be: A recent incident at gaming and social media giant Tencent proves that a deep-rooted overtime culture is hard to change, new policy or not.

Defiant Tencent worker Zhang Yifei, who openly challenged the company’s overtime culture, reignited wide discussion of the touchy topic this week. What triggered Zhang's criticism, according to his own account, was his team’s positive attitude toward overtime. His team, which falls under WeCom — a business communication and office collaboration tool similar to Slack — announced its in-house Breakthrough Awards. The judges’ comments to one winner highly praised them for logging “over 20 hours of intense work nonstop,” to help meet the deadline for launching a marketing page.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu covers China's tech industry.

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.


Spoiler alert: We’re already in the beta-metaverse

300 million people use metaverse-like platforms — Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft — every month. That equals the total user base of the internet in 1999.

A lot of us are using platforms that can be considered metaverse prototypes.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

What does it take to build the metaverse? What building blocks do we need, how can companies ensure that the metaverse is going to be inclusive, and how do we know that we have arrived in the 'verse?

This week, we convened a panel of experts for Protocol Entertainment’s first virtual live event, including Epic Games Unreal Engine VP and GM Marc Petit, Oasis Consortium co-founder and President Tiffany Xingyu Wang and Emerge co-founder and CEO Sly Lee.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.


Lyin’ AI: OpenAI launches new language model despite toxic tendencies

Research company OpenAI says this year’s language model is less toxic than GPT-3. But the new default, InstructGPT, still has tendencies to make discriminatory comments and generate false information.

The new default, called InstructGPT, still has tendencies to make discriminatory comments and generate false information.

Illustration: Pixabay; Protocol

OpenAI knows its text generators have had their fair share of problems. Now the research company has shifted to a new deep-learning model it says works better to produce “fewer toxic outputs” than GPT-3, its flawed but widely-used system.

Starting Thursday, a new model called InstructGPT will be the default technology served up through OpenAI’s API, which delivers foundational AI into all sorts of chatbots, automatic writing tools and other text-based applications. Consider the new system, which has been in beta testing for the past year, to be a work in progress toward an automatic text generator that OpenAI hopes is closer to what humans actually want.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories