The idea, proposed by the comment I was responding to, that regulators were just twiddling their thumbs and then only gave a thumbs down to Adobe after 15 months is wrong and completely misunderstands how the regulatory process for merger approval works.

What is also true is that the uk finished its phase 1 review (where they decide to send it for further phase 2 review) in June, so 9 months after the deal was announced. Phase 2 leads to changes in about 50% of deals. The phase 2 deadline was late February 2024, about 18 months later.

I don't think any of this is indicative of anyone sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs, but it’s clearly a slow process and that uncertainty clearly isn’t good for the parties involved.

tl;dr: Their was significant action less than a month after the announcement was made.

That's a little over a month after the announcement was made. That is "very early on" in the 15 month "sequence of events."

Keep in mind, this was the announcements. FTA: "The DOJ has been contacting customers and competitors of Adobe and Figma, as well as Figma’s venture capital investors, in recent weeks, the people said. According to one of the people, the DOJ has already issued civil investigative demands — information requests similar to subpoenas — an unusual move at this early juncture in the probe."

So, we are talking about significant action being taken less than a month after the announcement.

I'll grant you "very early on" is subjective, but I feel any reasonable person would say that this constitutes "very early on".

In short, I would urge you to look at the actual timeline of events around the CMA and the DOJ before you keep spreading an inaccurate factual understanding of the sequence of events here.

Also, it’s not as if Figma has been sitting around all this time waiting for their dear Adobe to close. My understanding is that more than 500 new people have been hired since the deal was announced (total is now like 1300+) and growth continues.

I’m just glad Figma can now move on without having to do some “roadmap alignment exercise” or doing the “gradually falling apart” that so many Adobe acquisitions have done.

The real thought should be why Adobe was willing to pay twice the recent valuation to take Figma out as a competitor, and why only European regulators had a problem with it. They have a tendency to kneecap anyone who’s a substantive threat to their market, and we need viable competition in the space.

It may not have been particularly timely in terms of review, but it was never inconsistent. And we have no idea what kinds of delays were put on the deal, including delays from the Figma and Adobe teams.

Which is exactly what they were supposed to do. Adobe and Figma tried to argue with the regulators or find a compromise, but couldn't come up with a solution that satisfied all parties.

If you try to extract subtle implications from the phrasing of a commenter on HN, you're likely to jump to the wrong conclusion.

If companies want a fast answer they can ask for one and it will be no.

All said I do not worry about if billion dollar companies are being fairly treated. They have the capital and expertise to protect their own interests and it’s not worth it to preemptively fight on their behalf.

Perhaps I should introduce you to the legal system? Adobe proposes the merger, DoJ says they will sue to stop it. At that point, if the parties can't come to an agreement, it goes to the courts.

I think it's fine to argue our legal system is too slow, but again, this idea that regulators are just "dragging their feet" to slow things down is fundamentally incorrect. Regulators announced quite quickly they would fight this deal.