Connect with us

Published

on

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced on Wednesday new long-awaited guidelines on how they will enforce merger law.

The new guidelines, currently in draft form, encapsulate the agencies’ push to keep pace with the digital age and a changing market. The proposed rules apply to both vertical and horizontal mergers. Almost two years ago, the FTC voted to withdraw the previous version of the vertical merger guidelines released in 2020, citing flaws.

related investing news

This under-the-radar marketing stock can rally more than 60%, Goldman Sachs says

CNBC Pro

A vertical merger is a transaction between two businesses that are often in different parts of the supply chain in an industry, according to the FTC. Horizontal mergers, by contrast, involve companies that compete or are in a similar part of the market.

Microsoft’s proposed $68.7 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard is an example of a vertical merger, because Microsoft distributes games through its Xbox consoles and streaming services, while Activision creates the games. The FTC challenged that deal, arguing that it was anticompetitive, but a court last week declined to grant the regulator’s request to stop it.

The FTC, under Chair Lina Khan, has been more aggressive in attempting to block Big Tech companies from expanding further, while the DOJ Antitrust Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, has also stepped up its activity.

Both agencies have stressed the importance of updating enforcement efforts to reflect a modernized economy even if that means losing more cases.

In the new guidelines, they outlined 13 points they will use to evaluate whether a merger should be blocked:

1. Mergers should not significantly increase concentration in highly concentrated markets.

2. Mergers should not eliminate substantial competition between firms.

3. Mergers should not increase the risk of coordination.

4. Mergers should not eliminate a potential entrant in a concentrated market.

5. Mergers should not substantially lessen competition by creating a firm that controls products or services that its rivals may use to compete.

6. Vertical mergers should not create market structures that foreclose competition.

7. Mergers should not entrench or extend a dominant position.

8. Mergers should not further a trend toward concentration.

9. When a merger is part of a series of multiple acquisitions, the agencies may examine the whole series.

10. When a merger involves a multi-sided platform, the agencies examine competition between platforms, on a platform, or to displace a platform.

11. When a merger involves competing buyers, the agencies examine whether it may substantially lessen competition for workers or other sellers.

12. When an acquisition involves partial ownership or minority interests, the agencies examine its impact on competition.

13. Mergers should not otherwise substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.

The 2020 guidelines did not explicitly discuss the impact on competition for workers. The new language also appears to address issues related to multi-sided platforms like Amazon that serve consumers and businesses.

The agencies may broaden the types of deals they review, potentially looking at a series of deals rather than a single merger. The FTC has already started down that path, suing Facebook parent Meta in 2020 based on a number of acquisitions of small rivals like Instagram and WhatsApp as a strategy to maintain its alleged monopoly power.

A senior FTC official told reporters in a briefing on Tuesday that the guidelines should give judges the clarity they’ve requested in the past when it comes to merger law, a matter of particular importance to judges who rarely encounter antitrust cases.

The FTC said in 2021 that it would work on new guidelines with the DOJ, after voting to withdraw the most recent iteration. The then-Democratic majority said the 2020 guidelines “adopted a particularly flawed economic theory regarding purported pro-competitive benefits of mergers, despite having no basis of support in the law or market reality,” according to a press release at the time.

In the nearly two years since those guidelines were scrapped, agency staffers have faced frequent questions about when a new set of rules would be available.

On the call with reporters, the FTC official and a senior DOJ official said the guidelines reflect their updated approach to enforcing merger law, emphasizing the law itself has not changed. They said the agencies assessed the more than 5,000 comments they received when embarking on the project.

The public has until Sept. 18 to submit comment on the draft guidelines. The agencies will then review those comments as they consider revisions ahead of final publication.

Once they’re finalized, the longevity of the new guidelines could depend on political power dynamics after the next presidential election in 2024. After all, the FTC voted to withdraw the last version of the guidelines just over a year after they were officially released.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: FTC court ruling shows why vertical deals are hard to challenge

Continue Reading

Technology

Musk teases Tesla Roadster demo by year-end. He’s been hyping a new one since 2017

Published

on

By

Musk teases Tesla Roadster demo by year-end. He's been hyping a new one since 2017

Toyota Motor Corp President Akio Toyoda gets out of a Tesla Motor’s Roadster electric car with Tesla Motors Chief Exective Officer Elon Musk (behind car) upon their arrival at a news conference in Tokyo November 12, 2010.

Issei Kato | Reuters

Eight years ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk promoted a next-generation Roadster, basing the name of the sports car on the company’s debut electric vehicle from 2008.

The updated version has yet to hit production. But Musk is again promising that a new one is on the way.

In a discussion with podcaster Joe Rogan that was published on Friday, Musk was asked about the long-delayed vehicle. He provided a sense of timing but declined to share updated technical or design details.

“I can’t do the unveil before the unveil,” Musk said. As he’s said before, Musk claimed the new Roadster “has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”

Tesla is aiming to show off the updated Roadster to fans and investors “hopefully before the end of the year,” Musk said.

Musk’s comments come a day after former close friend Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, posted on X that he tried to cancel his Roadster reservation from 2018 and get his deposit refunded. He shared a screenshot showing that his email to the company had bounced back.

“I really was excited for the car!” Altman wrote. “And I understand delays. But 7.5 years has felt like a long time to wait.”

Musk, who helped start OpenAI in 2015, is in a heated legal dispute with Altman and now runs competing artificial intelligence startup xAI.

Patrick George, editor-in-chief at InsideEVs and a long-time industry observer, told CNBC on Friday that the Roadster “has been MIA for years.”

“The only thing I can think of that would make Musk start talking about this again is that Sam Altman at OpenAI, who is sort of his arch-rival, just said recently that he was trying to cancel his Roadster reservation which he has held since 2018,” George said.

Earlier this year, the popular gadget and autos reviewer Marques Brownlee discussed the arduous process of cancelling his own Roadster reservation in an interview with Waveform Podcast.

The Roadster is a high end, low-volume model, something meant to challenge vehicles like BYD’s YangWang U9 Xtreme, which was recently crowned the world’s fastest production car.

Musk faces a major Tesla shareholder vote next week, as he and the board are asking investors to approve a massive pay package.

The pay plan would net Musk nearly $1 trillion in Tesla stock and would grow his stake to around 25%, depending on the company hitting various market valuations and other growth milestones.

WATCH: CNBC’s interview with Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm

Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm: The technology of AI is truly transformative

Continue Reading

Technology

Don’t own any Apple? Gear up to buy some if the stock keeps falling

Published

on

By

Don’t own any Apple? Gear up to buy some if the stock keeps falling

Continue Reading

Technology

As big tech pushes AI spending to the max, you may be helping to pay for it

Published

on

By

As big tech pushes AI spending to the max, you may be helping to pay for it

As the tech industry’s giants race to build out AI infrastructure — Microsoft spent $34.9 billion in just one quarter while Meta plans to spend up to $72 billion this year  — they may not be the only ones footing the multi-hundred-billion-dollar bill.

The consumer is increasingly facing AI-soaked subscription tiers as tech firms attempt to monetize their huge investments and bundle their software offerings with difficult-to-separate-out AI tools that can make it tough for customers to opt out — and more expensive if they don’t.

One example is Microsoft 365, which now includes Copilot AI features in many of its tiers. The company recently introduced Microsoft 365 Premium at $19.99 per month, which bundles Copilot Pro features with Microsoft 365. Previously, Copilot Pro cost $20/month on top of existing subscriptions, and to use it in desktop Office apps, customers also needed a separate Microsoft 365 Personal ($6.99/month) or Family ($9.99/month) plan — bringing the total to roughly $27–$30/month. The base Microsoft 365 subscription itself has become increasingly essential as Microsoft de-emphasizes standalone Office purchases and makes cloud integration more central to document workflows.

Similar bundling of AI tools is becoming the norm from Alphabet to Adobe.

For instance, in March 2025, Google Workspace added its Gemini AI assistant into Business and Enterprise plans with price increases of about $2–$4 per user per month — roughly a 16%–33% jump depending on the tier — and with AI features that, in most cases, can’t be removed or opted out of. For a 50-person company on Business Plus, that means an additional $2,400 annually.

Adobe rebranded Creative Cloud All Apps to Creative Cloud Pro starting mid-2025, with prices increasing from $59.99 to $69.99 per month (or $659.88 to $779.99 annually) — a $10-per-month hike linked to expanded generative AI capabilities such as unlimited standard image and vector generation.

Whether the customer wants the AI or not isn’t really the point, according to experts — it’s the cachet that costs.

“AI is all the rage right now and that buzz fuels what marketers call perceived value bias,” said Elizabeth Parkins, professor of practice at Roanoke College. “When something’s labeled ‘AI-powered,’ people assume it must be smarter or more useful, even if it barely changes their experience. That sense of progress makes the extra subscription feel justified — until consumers start asking whether they’re paying for innovation or just the illusion of it,” she added.

Microsoft, Adobe, and Google did not respond to requests for comment.

Fred Hicks, assistant vice president and chief information officer at Adelphi University, said the companies are adding the extra charges to help pay for multi-billion-dollar data centers and their insatiable appetite for energy.

“The cost of running GPU clusters and power consumption is so high that baking it into subscriptions is how they can recoup costs. We have seen software licensing turn into subscription models,” Hicks said, citing Microsoft and Adobe Creative Cloud as examples of the approach that was adopted before the gen AI boom. “This creates a funding model of constant income over a single-cost perpetual license. AI subscriptions follow the same philosophy,” he said.

Personalized AI can pay off over time

Hicks says that AI baked into everything is going to be ubiquitous at some point in the near future because firms that do not have it will lose an edge in the market. For consumers, paying the price may pay off over time due to the personalization that can be fine-tuned by AI if it is in your life on a regular basis.

“Personalization using the same AI model trains on your habits and preferences. It will become more accurate in personalizing the user’s needs. This requires a long-term engagement and subscription,” Hicks said.

But over-subscription will become an issue, like it already is with streaming services, prompting consumers to review what they really need and purge at least some subscriptions for cost savings. That may be easier said than done though when it comes to software.

“Debundling AI subscriptions from other services will almost be impossible. Google and Microsoft now include basic AI with many of their application subscriptions. Higher tiers are required for deeper integration, increasing costs,” Hicks said.

Chris Sorensen, CEO of PhoneBurner, a U.S.-based SaaS company, says that a quiet but significant shift is underway.

“AI itself isn’t only improving products but redefining how pricing structures work. Companies like Adobe, Microsoft, and Google are using AI ‘enhancements’ to justify recurring revenue where one-time licenses used to suffice,” Sorensen said, adding that subscription models make sense as they create predictable income but do hide incremental costs.

Consumer pushback is emerging

“Many consumers are starting to notice this shift. After a while you start to notice that you are paying $10 here and $20 there for features not being used and not actively opted into,” Sorensen said — and that extra revenue which may benefit companies for now could be in for more pushback in the future.

“Some pushback is emerging, particularly in creative and productivity communities, but I do believe this model is only going to grow,” Sorensen said. He thinks what is likely to happen is that companies will build up “AI premium intelligence” tiers which will eventually turn software ownership into perpetual rental.

Tien Tzuo, founder and CEO of Zuora, an enterprise software company that provides a platform for businesses to launch, manage, and monetize subscription-based services, says that AI-infused products and price hikes are an increasingly vexing problem for consumers.

“All companies are layering AI into their products, but it’s the largest companies like Adobe, Microsoft, and Google who are often hiking prices without clear justification. Other companies like Zendesk are taking a more transparent and customer-friendly approach by correlating AI pricing to outcomes, so you only pay when an AI resolves a ticket,” Tzuo said.

If consumers balk enough at paying more, especially if use cases prove to be underwhelming to many, there will be a future where AI is pay-as-you-go, Tzuo said.

“We’re seeing an explosion of interest in usage-based pricing for AI, where customers have control over what they pay for based on what they consume,” he said. “AI is shifting what that ‘value’ means, and paying based on usage helps companies prove it. How often you use a product or see a result should speak for itself,” Tzuo added.

The increased AI bundling is simply an extension of what has been happening online for years, according to Ananya Sen, assistant professor of information technology and management at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College. “The issue is how you can subscribe in one click, but to unsubscribe you have to make a phone call. In some sense what we are seeing with AI products is a continuation of that but maybe at a greater scale,” Sen said.

Since many people don’t understand AI products as well as existing software tools, they may not know what they are opting into, but one irony is that subscriptions today may end up being more secure than is in the best interest of consumers. That’s as a result of behavioral psychology, he says.

“There is an inertia once you opt in — it’s harder to opt out, you have to make an active choice. Companies are banking on and exploiting this,” Sen said. “And when it comes to AI products, it is a fast-evolving space. It is hard for a normal online consumer who uses these different tools to keep track — it becomes a bandwidth issue, your mental bandwidth and attention,” he added.

Sen says consumers need to be active in their own subscription ecosystem. “There has to be some responsibility on the consumer side. But it is a two-way street. These small dollar values add up,” Sen said.

Many consumers still have one advantage: they remain on free basic versions of software. But companies will do what they can to migrate more to subscription products. “Even when you think of the big players, a large proportion of the users use the basic free version. Even for the most prominent players, it is hard to get people to convert to a subscription,” Sen said.

Continue Reading

Trending