Google announced on March 18, 2025 a $36B (B as in billion) acquisition of Wiz. They are a relatively new startup involved with cybersecurity.
Google is technically a subsidiary of Alphabet, the parent company that owns Google and all the other acquisitions.
This would be Alphabet’s largest payout for an acquisition.
This acquisition was attempted just last year in July. Wiz declined the then offer of $23 billion, saying they wanted to pursue an initial public offering.
This acquisition plans to undergo federal anti-trust scrutiny. A major reason is that over the years Google has acquired a boatload of companies. According to Wikipedia, the total is a staggering 261! Some of those bought are You Tube, Fitbit, Android, reCAPTCHA, Invite Media, Skybox Imaging, Dropcam. Google is technically considered one of the acquisitions, thus under Alphabet. The question here is, does a company with over 250 acquisitions qualify as a monopoly?
Alphabet has a history of anti-trust pursuits, and not all by the U.S. government. Most of these have been over Google’s perceived monopoly over the search engine market, including entering into exclusive agreements with device manufacturers to provide its browser. A separate lawsuit focuses on its digital advertising platform. Not only by the U.S. federal government but also European governments as well. My argument is whether Google has created a monopoly based solely on its acquisitions.
ANALYSIS
What’s wrong here? How can you avoid being slapped with the name of oligarch if you have over 250 acquisitions? How can you avoid this scene being labeled as a monopoly? Does your company have over 100 acquisitions, let alone 250? Is acquisition the only way for Google to “grow?”
If Google needs improvement with cybersecurity, can’t they develop their own? Or they could form a partnership. Or they could simply purchase the service as a customer. These other companies could still exist as independent entities. Why does Wiz and hundreds of others have to be “acquired”. Alphabet may have legitimate evidence to justify it. However, theirs is not the only valid point of view here. It then becomes determining which valid argument takes priority.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
- Have Alphabet pay an annual acquisition tax for every acquisition they have made. The idea here is not to slap a tax on simply being large but on specific behavior.
- Have the courts break up Alphabet from its acquisitions, leaving what it may have developed itself.
- Provide “incentives” for Google and the other Big Tech companies to divest their acquisitions on their own. Divestiture is something recently pursued by both General Electric and Honeywell.
- If the courts rule that Google is not a monopoly, laws need to be rewritten so the courts can rule based on specific statutes and not on wide interpretation.
This proposed acquisition will be interesting to follow in the coming months. Future articles here will explore further the idea of defining “growth” as well as this pursuit of divestiture.
