Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Approves Amazon's Acquisition of Whole Foods (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the green-light dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The Federal Trade Commission will allow Amazon to continue its $13.7 billion deal to acquire Whole Foods. The FTC conducted an investigation to gauge whether the merger would decrease competition under federal regulations, Bruce Hoffman, acting director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement Wednesday. It ultimately decided not to pursue the matter further. Whole Foods shareholders approved Amazon's acquisition deal hours before the FTC's announcement.The two companies expect to finalize the agreement during the second half of the year. However, source familiar with the matter told CNBC the deal could happen sooner rather than later.

54 comments

  1. And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Free Market Capitalism dies a little more today, as a single company marches on its way to multifaceted sales monopolies across dozens of industries.

    1. Re: And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the greed is turned up to 11, most of society is unwilling or unable to take big steps to curb corporate power. Regulators are just human after all.

    2. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a single company marches on its way to multifaceted sales monopolies across dozens of industries.

      Not the first time it's happened. Most large companies end up breaking apart at some point or selling off businesses. And Amazon like Google is far too large to be manageable anymore.

      Anyway, Whole Foods isn't exactly the kind of place most people shop for groceries, being that it's high priced. Hardly the end of free markets and capitalism I assure you.

    3. Re:And so... by irrational_design · · Score: 0

      First they came for Zappos, and I did not speak out—
      Because I rarely buy shoes, and definitely not online.

      Then they came for Audible, and I did not speak out—
      Because I don't listen to audio books.

      Then they came for Whole Foods, and I did not speak out—
      Because I do not buy overpriced food.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    4. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What melodramatic schlock. "Oh, woe is me, I'll have to shop at Safeway or Kroger or Food City or Food 4 Less or Sprouts or Natural Grocers or Trader Joes or Bashes or US foods or Costco or Walmart or Target or any number of the Asian markets around here if I don't like Amazon. Competition is sooo diminished, Amazon totally has a monopoly on food now!"

    5. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then they came for me—and decided I wasn't worth buying.

      FTFY

    6. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait... the FTC, A Regulatory Agency, approves of this and you go on a rant against "free market capitalism"?

      You don't have a clue do you? What just happened was a regulatory captured market and capitalism, NOT free market!

      It is sad that people like you are not forced to pass a basic intelligence test before you are allowed to vote!

      Your regulatory (and mental) agencies have failed you, and can't even figure it out as that fact slides off the side of your face like a rotting egg!

    7. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who was a audible member pre and post amazon. They have only made it better.

    8. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is sad that people like you are not forced to pass a basic intelligence test before you are allowed to vote!

      Heh, that was funny. Pot, meet kettle...

    9. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Free Market" and "Capitalism" ultimately contradict each other.

    10. Re: And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curb ? Who is going to curb? Society? Regulators? Vote harder, that'll solve it!!!
      This exists BECAUSE of government not in spite of it.

    11. Re: And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whaaaaat?

      You are smoking some crazy shit if you think less government means less monopoly.

      Sure, government can be used to entrench one. T hats called regulatory capture. But that's a known problem with known solutions.

      Good luck breaking up a trust with no regulatory body to do so, though.

    12. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kroger and Food 4 Less are the same company...

  2. Goodnye ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... yellow brick mortar.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  3. Well of course it does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The consumer being screwed conveniently and/or by drone seems to be the way of the future.

    1. Re:Well of course it does. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      The consumer being screwed conveniently and/or by drone seems to be the way of the future.

      Rule 34 in action!

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
  4. Will These Stores Transition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From being just an overpriced grocery store to something more multi-dimensional that might end up looking like a Walmart?

    Will the acquisition fail for financial reasons, forcing Amazon to jettison the acquisition at a deep discount?

    One thing is for sure. Maintaining the "whole paycheck" pricing and occasionally overpriced & questionable products can only tarnish Amazon's image.

  5. Whole Foods Hot Bar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm gonna celebrate by shoving gourmet macaroni-and-cheese up my anus at $10 per pound!!!!

  6. ...Approves Amazon's Acquisition... by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    an alliteration a day keeps the ailments away.

  7. It's already the second half of the year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already the second half of the year

  8. Wrong, Hello! by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Amazon buying Whole Foods is breathing new life into a dying (or at least stagnant) industry. How has grocery shopping for you changed over the last several decades? Answer: it hasn't. Amazon just by not being the same old way of doing business, will probably change all grocery stores for the better.

    Amazon is amazingly adept at moving product around in a timely manner at low costs. How can that NOT make a grocery experience better?

    Also have to admit I'm looking forward to my free cantaloupe for being a Prime member... :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Wrong, Hello! by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Amazon just by not being the same old way of doing business, will probably change all grocery stores for the better.

      What makes you say that? You DO realize that Amazon's business model is selling all of your personal data to the highest bidder, right? How would that improve a grocery shopping experience?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Wrong, Hello! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      How much is my data actually worth? Google has it, Facebook has it, and I'm pretty sure the government has all of that, and then some. Just about everyone out there has it that wants it.

      My info is a commodity, and as such is only valuable in aggregate with other people's data.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Wrong, Hello! by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 2

      What is wrong with grocery shopping as it is now? They have what I want, it's up to date and the produce is fresh.

      If we follow the Amazon way, the grocery experience will be that you walk into the grocery store and half the time what you want will be replaced by a slightly cheaper brand you never heard of. It won't taste the same, but close. Next time you see the brand name food you really like, but because a knock-off made it into inventory it tastes disgusting, or it is recalled before you get home with it.

    4. Re:Wrong, Hello! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon buying Whole Foods is breathing new life into a dying (or at least stagnant) industry.

      Are they? How? Be specific. Offer details.

      How has grocery shopping for you changed over the last several decades? Answer: it hasn't.

      Well, I guess that just goes to show you're even more clueless than the Elder Bush.

      When was the last time you went Gah-row-sorry shopping, eh?

      Amazon just by not being the same old way of doing business, will probably change all grocery stores for the better.

      How many times have we heard that promise?

      Amazon is amazingly adept at moving product around in a timely manner at low costs. How can that NOT make a grocery experience better?

      Because cutting costs is something only Amazon can do?

      Besides, we've been through this, the race to the bottom sucks.

      You know what though? We're probably going to get somebody doing something that was done forty years ago, and you'll suck Bezos's cock off for that because you think he's the inventor of sliced bread.

    5. Re:Wrong, Hello! by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with grocery shopping as it is now? They have what I want, it's up to date and the produce is fresh.

      You have to walk or drive to the store, walk around for half and hour, and walk home. It's not terrible, which is why grocery stores are such a common thing. But on some level, it's wasted time. If you could get somebody to drop it off at the house for the same price, why not?

      Same as with retail shopping. It's not that driving to Best Buy and picking up a laptop is so bad. It's just that shopping online is better.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    6. Re:Wrong, Hello! by Higaran · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but hasn't Peapod been around forever. O let me see it was founded in 1989 and had been delivering groceries you buy online since the 90's. So please tell me how amazon is going to revolutionize grocery shopping with the internet again.

    7. Re:Wrong, Hello! by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      this, a thousand times this.

      I'd prefer it if the retailer and I went our separate ways after i give them money for item(s).

      I really don't need a detailed list of my purchases persisting for all eternity, and used in annoying attempts to entice me to buy more shit in the future (which i more than likely don't need to begin with.)

    8. Re:Wrong, Hello! by swillden · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but hasn't Peapod been around forever. O let me see it was founded in 1989 and had been delivering groceries you buy online since the 90's. So please tell me how amazon is going to revolutionize grocery shopping with the internet again.

      Well, for one thing Amazon will probably serve my region.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Wrong, Hello! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peapod doesn't operate within thousands of miles of me (I live in CA)

      But the issue with safeway.com is higher prices and smaller selection.

    10. Re:Wrong, Hello! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I walk into my grocery store, I pick out my food, I put it in my basket or cart, I go to the checkout, I get my purchases rung up, I pull out some cash - and I go away. What personal data do they have? They know that a single person bought items XY and Z, but other than that?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Wrong, Hello! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      How about not looking at styles of grocery shopping but rather than just as the size of a corporation is it too big to safely have in an economy, should limited liability laws end, when capital worth of a corporations is too great, should share holders be then liable for those debts rather than the general public. Why private profits and socialise losses. Once a corporations goes past a billion dollars, should not the share holders be liable for it's debts rather than the general public. Break up or take sole responsibility for corporate debts, those debts being passed out on a per share basis, rather than off to tax payers. Put real hard limits on the size of corporations. Should multi-nationals just be straight up banned, they are inherently evil as far as human societies are concerned, no longer loyal to the society they operate in and nothing more than a source of corruption of democracy, a true anti-social evil.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Wrong, Hello! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why they push the discounts for being a "Kroger Rewards" member so hard. It's their primary way to track who you are and what you buy.

    13. Re:Wrong, Hello! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I in a cashless society, your dreams are now nightmares. Sorry, this is the future. Orwell wasn't writing fiction, he was writing quatrains.

    14. Re:Wrong, Hello! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They have what I want, it's up to date and the produce is fresh.

      You have to walk or drive to the store, walk around for half and hour, and walk home. It's not terrible, which is why grocery stores are such a common thing. But on some level, it's wasted time. If you could get somebody to drop it off at the house for the same price, why not

      Delivery only addresses part of the grocery buying task, but it diminishes another part of the task, which is the competition in the store itself on qualty:

      Do you just pick the first banana or lettuce or whatever off the shelf, or do you pick around to get not-the-worst one in the pile? What do you think will happen to the quality if the store is the chooser and not you?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:Wrong, Hello! by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      How has grocery shopping for you changed over the last several decades?

      Well today I put my order in on a website, schedule a time, go to the store, and a helpful person brings my order out and puts it in my car. Or if I'm feeling really lazy, I open up an app, put in my order, schedule a time, and a helpful person brings my groceries right to my front door. I'd say that's a pretty big change, no Amazon required.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    16. Re:Wrong, Hello! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      How has grocery shopping for you changed over the last several decades? Answer: it hasn't.

      Mostly true, but what needs changing? I need groceries, I go to the store, pick them out, and pay for them. If I don't want to get out of my chair, there are numerous delivery services that will get my groceries for me and bring them to my home.

      I'm not really seeing an unmet need that makes grocery stores prime for disruption.

    17. Re:Wrong, Hello! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      My info is a commodity, and as such is only valuable in aggregate with other people's data.

      You mean, it's only valuable to other people in aggregate (although that's not entirely true, I'll go with it).

      To me, my info is priceless.

    18. Re:Wrong, Hello! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer it if the retailer and I went our separate ways after i give them money for item(s).

      A million times this. I prefer it so strongly that I tend to pay cash and I don't use "loyalty cards". I even try to avoid shopping at store that do, since they tend to price their stuff higher than stores that don't.

    19. Re:Wrong, Hello! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      We don't live in a cashless society. Yet, anyway.

    20. Re:Wrong, Hello! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      But on some level, it's wasted time. If you could get somebody to drop it off at the house for the same price, why not?

      You can do that right now in most places. Not for the same price, but if grocery stores themselves do it for the same price, that's only because they've raised their prices across the board.

    21. Re:Wrong, Hello! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      it diminishes another part of the task, which is the competition in the store itself on qualty

      This.

      If I have a friend who knows me very well do my shopping for me, I expect that I'm not going to get the exact item I want (mostly with produce). It impossible that a store or delivery service would do that job any better, and would be amazing if they did it equally as well as my friend.

    22. Re:Wrong, Hello! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I registered for my Kroger's rewards card (well, it was Fred Meyer, up in Lynnwood), with a made-up phone number. Works great, even 11 years later! No e-mail, no phone number, no nothing. They know a certain person with a given phone number buys XY and Z every month - but who is that person? This is not Amazon - that is the point. You don't have to create and sign into an account to buy something, you can walk in off the street and just pay cash and walk out.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    23. Re:Wrong, Hello! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Are they? How? Be specific. Offer details.

      Ok Moron:

      1) They keep dropping products that are popular, or under stocking extremely popular stuff while having boatloads of product or product options few people seem to buy.

      2) Most stores do not offer much information or customer feedback about grocery products, nor is there any real way for a consumer to give feedback to the store other than manually going to the customer service desk and waiting in line behind people buying smokes.

      3) Most store designs are extremely un-ptimzied for flow, I know this will be way beyond you but I point it out for others.

      Those are just off the top of my head...

      Because cutting costs is something only Amazon can do?

      No, because cutting costs is a side effect of inefficient distribution, which you are apparently too stupid to grasp.

      Just like you can't even figure out a login...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    24. Re: Wrong, Hello! by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

      There is nothing "dying" or "stagnant" about the sector, which has seen explosive growth in the past ten years.

      In fact, economically healthy centers like Denver and the Twin Cities are now overcrowded. There's been hypertrophic growth -- a very sharp and necessary correction is on its way.

      Amazon's role in what will transpire is much more complex than your surmise about appy-fappy excitement to come.

      By leveraging its clout and market-backed power (if not its own broken business model), Amazon may exercise vast power over distribution. That in turn has significant implications for the bottom lines of farmers and particularly for the types of smaller natural and organic growers who supply Whole Foods. Walmart has already beaten it in this area, but in a business with the thinnest margins there is always room for more degradation of labor.

      By moving toward AI-driven workerless stores, Amazon can accelerate the pace of job loss that will soon swamp the retail sector with far-reaching social consequences. Even a public subsidy-dependent utopian like Elon Musk worries about what that will bring.

      More generally, Amazon will be in a position to introduce to our food chain the types of values that have made it a hellhole for its domestic employees as well as a prime mover in the sweatshopping of the world. It's hard to imagine a more Stalinist corporation in the west, though Google
      certainly competes.

      And lastly, expanding monopoly power will lead inevitably to more regulatory capture. One day, that free cantaloupe of yours may be swimming in carcinogenic pesticides yet be called "naturally grown" (and heartily recommended by the in-house food writer at Jeff's WaPo).

      Eat up. I doubt you'll know the difference.

  9. I am getting by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    My rubber stamp inked up.

    APPROVED!

    A hearty "thank you" goes out to the FTC for the latest atrocity.

    --
    Rick B.
  10. Whole Foods market share by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whole Foods has a very tiny market share in groceries. There's no reason to block the deal because the grocery market is super competitive.

    The FTC is a legal enforcement agency. They don't use internet conspiracy theories or grudges in their decision making. They can't make up a dystopian fairy tale to decide things like this.

    1. Re:Whole Foods market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus nobody would bribe them to oppose it.

    2. Re:Whole Foods market share by MatthiasF · · Score: 2

      Supermarket industry is super competitive but also very fragile. I've seen chains disappear, stores go out of business from over-supply and lots of turn-over for the retail spaces made for them. If Amazon can disrupt, it could be a bigger deal than you think.

    3. Re:Whole Foods market share by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Supermarket industry is super competitive but also very fragile. I've seen chains disappear, stores go out of business from over-supply and lots of turn-over for the retail spaces made for them.

      Antitrust law protects competitive markets, not existing competitors.

    4. Re:Whole Foods market share by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I agree. Whole Foods is an extremely specialized sort of store that can't really compete with ordinary ones (that's why they were on the block). The monopoly risk seems low.

  11. Counterfiet "organic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy your lead and melamine from China

  12. People still use Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew!?

  13. Cost of business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course the FTC members' decision wasn't swayed by any of the $13.7 billion sloshing around.