U.S. Senators Press DOJ and FTC to Scrutinize Big Tech 'Acquihires'

Three U.S. senators have formally asked antitrust enforcers to examine a wave of deals in which large technology companies pay for the key personnel and assets of startups without completing outright takeovers. Lawmakers argue those transactions—often structured to bring founders and technical leaders into the buyer’s organization while leaving the target company formally independent—can consolidate talent, intellectual property and market advantage in ways that mimic mergers but evade standard review. The senators singled out several high-value arrangements this year, including a $14.3 billion investment by Meta tied to leadership from an AI firm, a $2.4 billion licensing pact between Google and an AI coding startup, and Nvidia’s roughly $20 billion acquisition of assets and executives from an AI chipmaker. Their letter to the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission asks regulators to treat such deals as potential antitrust matters and to block or reverse transactions that unlawfully reduce competition. For investors and startup employees, these “acquihire-style” structures can create unclear outcomes—founders may receive large payouts while other stakeholders are left in limbo. For incumbents, the tactic accelerates capability-building at lower regulatory cost than a full merger, offering a rapid shortcut into strategic AI talent and resources. Regulators face a challenge: applying merger law to arrangements that are engineered to look like personnel hires rather than corporate combinations. If the DOJ and FTC adopt the senators’ view, buyers could see greater scrutiny, longer deal timelines and a higher bar for claiming the transaction is merely a hiring or licensing action. That would likely deter some of the biggest players from using talent-focused deals as a routine strategy and could preserve exit diversity for startups. The dispute also signals a broader policy choice about how aggressively antitrust authorities will police consolidation in AI infrastructure and know‑how. A stricter enforcement posture would reshape dealmaking incentives across venture capital and corporate development, potentially slowing rapid aggregation of specialist teams. Conversely, limited intervention would leave incumbents with a faster path to absorb skills and intellectual property, raising risks to competition and innovation. Either outcome will influence valuation expectations, recruitment competition, and how founders negotiate exits in the near term.