The facts
The Federal Trade Commission has taken steps to preserve competition in the digital advertising ecosystem by requiring Publicis Groupe S.A. to continue providing neutral and nondiscriminatory access to LiveRamp Holdings Inc.’s products and services, and to establish firewalls to prevent Publicis from accessing LiveRamp’s customer data, in order to complete Publicis’s acquisition of the company. The proposed consent order addresses FTC concerns that Publicis’s acquisition of LiveRamp, a data connectivity services provider, would harm competition in the markets for media agency services and audience data services. Under the $2.2 billion deal, Publicis, a provider of media agency services, would acquire 100% of LiveRamp. The FTC alleged the deal would likely result in Publicis having the ability and incentive to foreclose customers of competing media agency service providers by using its control of LiveRamp to push customers to switch their media agency business to Publicis. David Shaw, Principal Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, stated, “By requiring LiveRamp to continue operating as it does today as a neutral platform, this order will ensure that Publicis does not gain an unfair advantage over its competitors in the digital advertising marketplace.” The FTC alleged Publicis would deny or degrade access to LiveRamp services on which competitors rely, leading to higher costs and lower quality services for customers of competing digital advertising services. The proposed order requires Publicis and LiveRamp, for five years, to maintain LiveRamp’s existing business practices and to provide neutral and nondiscriminatory access to LiveRamp’s products and services. The order also provides protections for LiveRamp customers, including a requirement that Publicis shall not retaliate against customers that discuss compliance concerns with the Commission. The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the consent agreement for public comment was 2-0.
Our take
Well, fuck me. In a stunning display of corporate foresight roughly equivalent to a toddler trying to shove an entire cake in its mouth, Publicis Groupe just spent $2.2 billion to buy LiveRamp and immediately needed the fucking Federal Trade Commission to hold its hand and explain why that’s a shitty idea. The FTC’s solution? A consent order that essentially tells this advertising behemoth, Hey, you absolute cunt, you can’t just buy the playground and then kick all the other kids off the slide. The agency had to legally mandate that Publicis not use its new toy to fuck over competitors, which is the entire reason it bought the toy in the first place.
Let’s translate the bureaucratic bullshit: The FTC ‘alleged’ the deal would let Publicis ‘foreclose’ competitors. That’s regulator-speak for You greedy pricks planned to buy the only water well in the desert and then charge your rivals a thousand bucks for a sip. Their master plan was to acquire LiveRamp, a neutral data platform everyone uses, and then suddenly develop a catastrophic case of selective amnesia about how to operate a fair service. They’d degrade access for rivals, jack up costs, and generally behave like the monopolistic assholes they dream of being.
So the geniuses at the FTC, in a 2-0 vote that required the mental exertion of a fucking light switch, crafted a five-year order. It forces Publicis to… *checks notes*… continue operating LiveRamp as it does today. As a neutral platform. You know, the way it worked before they spent two billion dollars to own it. This is like buying a bakery and needing a court order to promise you won’t piss in the dough. The order also includes a ‘non-retaliation’ clause, because apparently we must now legally remind billion-dollar corporations not to act like vengeful, petty schoolyard bullies when customers snitch on them.
Principal Deputy Director David Shaw said this order will ‘ensure Publicis does not gain an unfair advantage.’ That’s the regulatory version of putting a single Band-Aid on a gushing chest wound. The whole fucking point of the acquisition was to gain an unfair advantage, you daft prick. The FTC just made them pinky-swear not to. For five years. After which, one can only assume, the plan is to unleash hell. This isn’t preserving competition; it’s a timeout for a corporation that got caught with its hand in the cookie jar before it even bought the supermarket.
