CAROLINE LARKIN—Almost everyone is familiar with the company iRobot, the makers of Roomba—an autonomous vacuum that zooms around your house, cleaning whilst simultaneously avoiding your furniture, rugs, and pets. What you may not know about the company is that in 2022, Amazon and iRobot announced a proposed acquisition, valued at $1.4 billion, which would have been one of Amazon’s largest acquisitions to date. However, the deal fell apart due to disapproval from European Union regulators. In a joint statement released on January 29, 2024, Amazon and iRobot stated that the “acquisition of iRobot has no path to regulatory approval in the European Union, preventing Amazon and iRobot from moving forward together—a loss for consumers, competition, and innovation.” Amazon subsequently paid iRobot a $94 million termination fee.
More specifically, the European Commission claims that it halted the acquisition out of concern that it would restrict competition in the market for robot vacuum cleaners. Additionally, they were concerned that Amazon would attain a more dominant position in the market for online marketplace services to third-party sellers. The United States Federal Trade Commission, under former Chair Lina Khan, was also opposed to the acquisition. In a statement released following the announcement of the termination of the acquisition, the FTC voiced that they were “pleased” that the transaction fell through and that “[t]he FTC will not hesitate to take action in enforcing the antitrust laws to ensure that competition remains robust.”
That quote epitomizes a recent shift in both EU competition law and United States antitrust law. Over the past few years, European Union competition law has abandoned a purely consumer-first approach to enforcement and has begun promulgating regulations to prevent big companies from getting any bigger. In the United States, regulatory thinking has reverted from the Chicago School’s consumer welfare standard back to structuralism, which ruled U.S. antitrust law until 1970. Drawing from structuralist theories that assessed economic performance by the number of firms in a market and the difficulty of new entry, the FTC’s approach to the doomed acquisition reflects a “big is bad” philosophy and departs from the consumer welfare standard’s singular focus on the consumer.
In December 2025, iRobot filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and announced that it entered into a Restructuring Support Agreement with its primary contract manufacturer, Shenzhen PICEA Robotics Co., Ltd., and Santrum Hong Kong Co., Limited (“Picea”). iRobot had been showing signs of financial distress, as it had begun paying vendors late, and its credit score dropped into the “Very High Risk” category. Additionally, competition from cheaper knock-off robotic vacuums was becoming a problem. Today, iRobot continues on a steep decline. Recent numbers show that the company has reduced its workforce by about half since the beginning of 2024. Importantly, CEO and founder Colin Angle has left. The company’s agreement to be bought by Amazon was set to be its lifeline until regulators blocked it.
What seemed like a win for the European Commission and FTC is a big loss for consumers. On January 23, 2026, iRobot announced the successful completion of its “strategic transition” with Picea. Not only was the company itself harmed by the termination of the Amazon acquisition, but more importantly, consumers will be harmed by iRobot’s acquisition by a Chinese company. The new deal raises issues about how Roomba’s home-mapping data will be used (or abused) by Picea. U.S. Representatives Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) and Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to review the deal between the company and Picea, fearing that the sensitive technology falling into the wrong hands could be used to spy on Americans. Interestingly, security concerns were one of the top reasons EU and U.S. regulators blocked Amazon’s acquisition of iRobot; they feared that Amazon would combine its own data with Roomba’s home-mapping data. Antitrust law has long recognized that competition is meant to deliver not only lower prices but also safer and more reliable products, making the possibility of sensitive household data falling under foreign control a concern that cannot be captured by price effects alone.
The consequences of blocking the Amazon-iRobot acquisition serve as a cautionary tale, showing how antitrust can stray from its main goal of protecting consumers. When regulators at home and abroad impose high barriers for mergers and acquisitions out of fear of future harm, they remove a key exit option for struggling companies, often at the detriment of consumers.
