That price was for a global deal, not just the UK. 50.5M is likely higher than Giphy's UK revenues for a year. It does seem punitive.

TFA also says that Austria fined FB ~10M for the same deal.

It might all have been priced into the deal as some other comments have pointed out. If the goal is to truly deter, then the CMA should perhaps make FB unwind the deal at least in the UK.

Isn't the point here that they've already integrated the business - otherwise why not just comply with the disclosure requirement?

Also not sure that we can measure the value to Facebook in this way. This is about strengthening Facebook's core business which is worth (just guessing) > $500bn. How much value it adds is unknown but I bet it's a lot more than the acquisition price.

TFA states that FB believes any disclosure and separation was on a best effort basis, and they've complied.

As to the impact on the core business, you're right. However, FB is not worth $500B in the UK alone where this dispute is.

> Facebook said it had made its “best effort” to comply with the IEO.

That's not the same as what you've said here.

If you break your word about an acquisition, make it the cost of the purchase + 100% of any value that acquisition generated (a good rule of thumb would be ~10x the amount of money spent on supporting that BU or the total amount of revenue, whichever is higher).

Seems like everyone is concerned about moral hazards for normal crimes yet white collar crimes like this are extremely underpunished to the point that you can factor that fine into your P&L.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."