EU Regulators Cast Shadow Over $36B Mars-Kellanova Merger, Citing Monopoly Concerns
EU Regulators Cast Shadow Over $36B Mars-Kellanova Merger, Citing Monopoly Concerns
The ambitious $36 billion merger between confectionery giant Mars and snack powerhouse Kellanova, a deal that stood out in a quiet M&A landscape, is now facing significant headwinds from European regulators. The European Commission has launched an in-depth investigation, expressing “serious doubts” about the proposed tie-up’s potential impact on competition within the bloc.
Announced last August, the merger aims to create a food behemoth with over $63 billion in net sales and a portfolio boasting 17 billion-dollar brands. Mars envisions the acquisition as a strategic move to deepen its footprint in the rapidly expanding salty snacks market, complementing its traditional strengths in sweets, and expanding its global reach, particularly in regions like Africa where Kellanova has a stronger presence.
However, the European Commission fears the combined entity could wield excessive market power across the EU. Regulators highlighted concerns from various retailers regarding Mars’ increased bargaining leverage, especially with the addition of Kellanova’s “must-have brands.” Teresa Ribera, executive vice-president for clean, just and competitive transition, underscored the urgency: “As inflation-hit food prices remain high across Europe, it is essential to ensure that this acquisition does not further drive up the cost of shopping baskets. Our in-depth investigation will assess the transaction’s impact on the price of these companies’ products for consumers.”
Despite the setback, Mars remains confident in the merger’s ultimate approval, stating it “will deliver more choice and innovation to consumers” and expressing optimism that the investigation will be “positively resolved.”
This EU probe stands in stark contrast to the stance taken by US regulators. On the very same day the European Commission announced its deep dive, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States concluded its own review, determining the deal was not anticompetitive. Daniel Guarnera, the FTC’s director of the bureau of competition, clarified their position: “Our job is to protect competition and consumers in the United States. Our job is to determine whether there is a violation of American law that we can prove in court. And once we’ve concluded there is not, our job is to get out of the way.”
The differing regulatory outcomes set the stage for an intriguing battle. While the US has given its blessing, the fate of this colossal food merger now hinges on the outcome of the comprehensive investigation by the European Union, which will meticulously scrutinize its potential effects on consumer prices and market competition across Europe.
Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.