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.”


Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep ReadingShow less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.


Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep ReadingShow 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