Search 'middle finger' on Giphy: Basically Facebook's response to UK competition concerns over merger

Facebook has hit back at the UK's regulatory challenge to its decision to buy gif slinger Giphy, claiming the provisional findings by the competition watchdog are based on "fundamental errors." The tech giant's no-nonsense response was sent to the Competition and Market's Authority (CMA) last month but has only just been made …

[Mike 137]

Half a billion?

"Giphy, styled as GIPHY, is an American online database and search engine that allows users to search for and share short looping videos with no sound, that resemble animated GIF files" [Wikipedia]

Why could this be worth half a billion (some say $400k)? Obviously it has a data slurping angle like all these online "services". but what I can't get my head round is its assumed popularity. They'll need the head count to make the money, but why would anyone sign up to this specifically, seeing there are so many other ways to share all sorts of images and data. This isn't just a rhetorical rant - I'd really like to know what makes this remotely interesting.

[fidodogbreath]

Re: Half a billion?

Presumably they think your GIF search strings will give them $500M worth of additional data on how to manipulate you into buying shit you don't need, and/or which echo chamber to place you in.

[Mike 137]

Re: Half a billion?

"your GIF search strings will give them $500M worth of additional data"

Indeed so, but why would anyone sign up to such a narrowly defined service in the face of the proliferation of social media platforms where you can share almost anything digital?

[sofaspud]

Re: Half a billion?

That's easy: because Giphy is already entrenched.

Do you use Discord? Giphy.

Webex? Giphy.

Instagram? Snapchat? TikTok? Giphy.

You don't need to sign up with them directly and Zuckerborg doesn't care if you do; what matters is that all the various things you use already use it and they can inject ads into it as long as they control it. And capture whatever it scrapes from the end user as well, regardless of whether they directly have a 'giphy account' or not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Half a billion?

not to mention a previously unexplored venue into not paying, say 500M worth of tax... Every little helps, you know!

[Pascal Monett]

the wrong legal test

I acknowledge that Facebook's regular skirting at the edge of the law puts it in fine position to know how the law works, but it is still ferociously ironic for Facebook to educate a government institution focusing on competition how it should interpret the law.

I expect Facebook to be brutally slapped down on this one.

[nematoad]

Re: the wrong legal test

"I expect Facebook to be brutally slapped down on this one."

I'm not sure that they will, though I sincerely hope they are.

No, there will be some cosy stitch-up and Facebook will go on its merry way.

"Too big to fail?" More like "Too big to prosecute." After all they have more money to spend on lawyers than most governments.

[cornetman]

Pretty much everything else in their statement can be proved to be objectively incorrect. However the last one is something that I'm unsure about and they may have a point:

'Wrapping up, it went on to say that the deal has "no material nexus to the UK" and that Giphy is a "US-based business with no UK assets, employees, revenues, or customers."'

I know the US government thinks that its laws apply to the rest of the world, but the reality of this statement is unclear to me.

Anyone care to comment?

[Anonymous Coward]

CMA overreach trying to make themselves relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has a large UK business, and it is the potential of reduced competition to Facebook that is the issue.

It has nothing to do with Giphys' business, so where giphy domiciles is irrelevant

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

So Facebook UK can't merge with Giphy but Facebook RotW can? That would be interesting to enforce. Facebook UK must compete in the UK with Facebook RotW, UK branch.

Still, we know Zuck's playbook. Restrict Facebook in the UK for a few weeks and warn they might have to shut it down completely unless the CMA backs down. Once the clamour reaches fever pitch, a deal will be done. (Cf Australia.)

[Anonymous Coward]

"The unremarkable fact that people in UK can access the Internet"

But the fact that the CMA found that Facebook had a share of around 50% of the £5.5 billion display advertising market in UKis far more remarkable for an antitrust authority... it you like to be a multi-national entity, you can't complain when you go under multi-national scrutiny.

[Anonymous Coward]

provisional findings by the competition watchdog are based on "fundamental errors."

which, translated from French, reads as: I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal-food-trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

btw, have the CMA written a letter to fb telling them how angry they are, or are they, for now, holding off and debating whether to start with a soft cushion?

[Anonymous Coward]

US-based business with no UK assets, employees, revenues, or customers

I thought this mission statement was reserved strictly for amazon.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: US-based business with no UK assets, employees, revenues, or customers

@A/C

It's reserved for ALL u.s. companies. And it applies to ANY country the u.s. see's fit.

Hmmm, better use an /S

[AdamWill]

Re: US-based business with no UK assets, employees, revenues, or customers

No, don't be silly. amazon.co.uk is based in *Ireland* with no UK assets, employees, revenues or customers. Tax works better that way.

[Anonymous Coward]

It won’t be long until

Facebook (Lord protect his Zuckiness) starts its own political party.

Local government then the mainstream.

The people owned from cradle to grave.