Big Tech acquires a new company every 11 days

The unprecedented expansion of monopoly power stifles innovation and diversity

Google’s owner, Alphabet, recently announced its largest acquisition ever when it bought Israeli cybersecurity start-up Wiz for a whopping $32 billion in March. In spite of its unprecedented cost, there is a risk that the deal falls below the thresholds for regulatory scrutiny in jurisdictions like the EU. This is just the most recent example of Big Tech’s expansionist strategy.

Through aggressive mergers and acquisitions, tech giants have expanded their dominance. Competition authorities worldwide have so far mostly waved these deals through with little scrutiny, in spite of increased calls for greater accountability. In the past decade, competition authorities have become somewhat more vigilant, but still, Big Tech companies have been able to circumvent regulations. For instance, a report(opens in new window) by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) notes that between 2010 and 2019, Big Tech companies carried out 819 transactions that did not meet the reporting thresholds under U.S. merger control rules. 

To expose the monopolisation by Big Tech and the lack of merger control by competition authorities, SOMO is launching the Big Tech M&A tracker. This database will increase transparency and enable public access to key M&A information. SOMO’s analysis of the database is presented in this article. 

Big Tech’s M&A strategy goes under the regulatory radar

Our analysis reveals that Big Tech companies acquired at least 191 firms between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2025. This figure is a minimum estimate, as some mergers and acquisitions may not have been recorded in the databases we used. For example, in 2019, Apple CEO Tim Cook said(opens in new window) , “Apple buys a company every two to three weeks on average“. 

The acquisition of 191 companies means that, on average, Big Tech acquired a new company nearly every 11 days in the last 6 years. 

Notably, there was a severe slowdown in M&A activity after 2022, as shown by the graph below. While Big Tech acquired 40 companies on average between 2019 and 2022 each year, they acquired 13 and 18 companies in 2023 and 2024, respectively. 

This is likely the result of the deterring effect of stricter merger control enforcement, especially in the US under the Biden Administration, and rising interest rates, which made it harder for companies to secure cheap debt to acquire new companies. Indeed, the total M&A market dropped(opens in new window) 15% in 2023, and vigorous merger enforcement deterred companies from mergers. Nine mergers were abandoned(opens in new window) in the US in 2024 following investigations, a sharp increase compared to just two in 2022. The US was not alone, though. In 2023, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority blocked Meta’s acquisition of Giphy, and the European Commission objected to Amazon’s takeover of iRobot, a deal that the companies then dropped.  

However, with the second Trump administration and its close ties to Big Tech CEO’s, the pendulum has started swinging the other way, likely enabling a boost in M&A activity in the next few years. We’re already seeing signs of this shift, such as the aforementioned $32 billion acquisition by Alphabet of Wiz, which is reportedly(opens in new window) accelerated under Trump. Last summer, before Trump’s election, Wiz rejected a $23 billion bid from Alphabet, citing concerns over regulatory clearance(opens in new window) as one of the reasons. 

Two out of three acquired companies shut down their website post-acquisition

While the vast scale of Big Tech acquisitions is concerning, it is equally important to examine what happens to the acquired companies in the aftermath. There are several possible scenarios for acquired companies post-acquisition. While some companies may be integrated into Big Tech’s ecosystems, others may be either killed or wasted under Big Tech’s reign.

One indicator to analyse this is to check whether the acquired companies keep their websites available after the acquisition. The websites of 67% of the 191 companies in the database are not available anymore. These websites have either been shut down, announced their closure, or redirected users to the website of a Big Tech company. These results also align with Gautier and Maitry(2024)(opens in new window) , which follows a similar methodology for Big Tech acquisitions between 2015 and 2021. According to their analysis, most of the acquired products are discontinued post-acquisition. 

This does not necessarily mean that 67% of the acquired companies we identified were killed. Some may have been integrated into Big Tech’s ecosystems and continue to exist. However, this figure indicates that these acquired companies lost their autonomy to offer their products and services independently, which is the very factor that made them successful enough to be acquired by Big Tech. The fact that two out of three companies shut down their websites suggests that they may have been killed by the acquiring company or were eliminated or restricted before reaching their full potential. This suggests that these companies could have offered viable alternatives to established firms in various markets, providing new and potentially more efficient solutions to consumers, if they had not been acquired. Further, a study(opens in new window) by Ufuk Akcigit and Nathan Goldschlag showed that the acquisition of startups by established firms decreases innovation by 6 to 11%. 

These are three key examples of potential killer acquisitions in the past six years: 

• In 2020, Amazon acquired bluDiagnostics, a startup behind FertilityFinder, a home device designed to help women track their fertility. Amazon reportedly shut down(opens in new window) the project in November 2024.
• In 2020, Google acquired StratoZone, a cloud migration company. Google ceased selling StratoZone at the end of July 2024 and shut down the company(opens in new window) at the end of September 2024.
• Meta acquired multiple companies that worked on Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) technologies between 2019 and 2025. One of these companies was Ready at Dawn, a game developer known for creating several successful titles, including Lone Echo, widely regarded as one of the best VR games ever released. Meta first laid off one-third of the studio(opens in new window) in 2023 and closed the company in 2024(opens in new window) .

These examples hint at a broader problem in how Big Tech companies can shape the path of innovation across the digital economy in a way that benefits only their own business model and profit margins. This can impact people by increasing dependence on Big Tech ecosystems, restricting third-party interoperability, killing creativity or wasting promising technologies in delicate areas such as healthtech or cybersecurity.  Moreover, the concentration of innovation risks undermining a diverse and pluralistic economy, where innovation can flourish along multiple, independent paths.

It is important to note that these examples are only a fraction of the discontinued companies and do not include companies that will be killed in the following years. For example, Microsoft acquired Ally Technologies(opens in new window) in 2021 to integrate it into its Microsoft Viva family. Microsoft recently announced(opens in new window)  that it will retire Viva Goals at the end of 2025.

Big Tech bought 27 companies from the EU and shut down 16 websites 

As geopolitical tensions rise and nations prioritise competition over cooperation, the nationality of target companies becomes increasingly important. This shift is evident in the U.S. through tariffs, in China through state capitalism, and in the EU through a focus on competitiveness. 

The buzzword of today, the Draghi report(opens in new window) , highlights the crucial role of innovation in enhancing the EU’s competitiveness, and killer acquisitions by American Big Tech pose a significant challenge to boosting its innovativeness. The new EU Commissioner responsible for Competition Policy, Teresa Ribera, is committed to tackling the risks posed by killer acquisitions(opens in new window) , particularly those involving foreign companies, as well as addressing other challenges faced by SMEs.

Analysis of the database shows that Big Tech – all American companies – acquired 27 companies from EU member states between 2019 and 2025. This includes companies developing Artificial Intelligence (for example, the French Datakalab and the Spanish Vilynx), cybersecurity (the Swedish Foreseeti AB), cloud services (the German KinvolkGmbH), and robotics (the Belgian Cloostermans).

It is noteworthy that this number does not include EU companies incorporated in other countries. For example, Stamplay, an Italian startup(opens in new window) , is listed as a UK company due to its registration there. Out of 27 EU companies, 16 (59%) shut down their website after being acquired. This raises significant concerns about American Big Tech acquiring promising EU start-ups, potentially stifling innovation, growth, and scaling opportunities for EU companies.

Competition authorities need to enforce strict merger control rules to challenge Big Tech

The findings above reveal that Big Tech has embarked on an unprecedented acquisition spree, snapping up nearly 200 companies in just six years, a trend that threatens to stifle innovation. There is an alarming lack of public scrutiny and control over these M&A deals. For example, according to the EU merger publication database, out of 191 listed mergers, only seven mergers have been notified and investigated by the European Commission, in addition to the Amazon/iRobot merger, which was abandoned after competition concerns. 

The reason is that merging companies don’t need to notify regulators if the merger does not meet notification thresholds, which are generally based on annual turnover. These thresholds risk missing important mergers as startups with innovative potential don’t generate much turnover in the first years. This has allowed many Big Tech mergers to fly under the radar, escaping scrutiny by competition authorities. A notable example is Facebook’s 2012 acquisition of Instagram, which was not notified because Instagram had yet to generate any revenue.(opens in new window) Thirteen years later, a similar risk arises as Google moves to acquire Wiz for $32 billion. According to its most recent public accounts, Wiz’s UK subsidiary, responsible for sales across the UK and the EU, reported a turnover of £29 million in the financial year ending 31 January 2024. This appears to fall short of the EU merger notification thresholds, which require the target to generate at least €25 million in revenue in each of three different member states for the transaction to be notifiable to the European Commission. That EU merger control may fail to capture Google’s largest acquisition to date raises serious concerns about whether current thresholds are fit for addressing market power in the digital economy.

Therefore, regulators need to be equipped with more fine-tuned tools, such as call-in power, to investigate a merger even if it does not meet merger thresholds or market investigation tools to check previous mergers and the aftermath of acquired companies. Such tools would enable authorities to fill the gap in merger control to tackle innovation loss arising from certain mergers.

Further, merger reviews of below-threshold acquisitions should not be limited to the killer acquisition framework. Competition authorities must also take into account the impact on innovation systems, especially looking towards enabling promising startups to reach their full potential, promoting diversity in innovation and employment opportunities and more choices for consumers. 

Our analysis shows that Big Tech companies are not necessarily the best place for startups to flourish. Therefore, competition authorities and policymakers should look for alternative tools to scrutinise these mergers and block them when necessary. Authorities should foster a level playing field where smaller firms can innovate, grow, and ultimately challenge dominant players.