Recently, iRobot—the Massachusetts-based company that pioneered the robot vacuum—announced that it is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Soon, it will be acquired by its Chinese manufacturer and lender, Picea Robotics. A once-iconic American technology company is becoming fully Chinese-owned.
This outcome was not accidental. It is the predictable result of ill-conceived antitrust intervention by US and European regulators who blocked Amazon’s acquisition of iRobot two years ago. In the name of protecting competition, these regulators weakened it. In the name of protecting consumers, they harmed them.
In 2022, Amazon announced plans to acquire iRobot for about $1.7 billion. The logic was straightforward. iRobot faced intensifying competition from rivals with lower costs, faster product cycles, and growing global reach. Amazon brought world-class artificial intelligence, logistics, and software integration—exactly the tools iRobot needed to transform itself.
Consumers stood to benefit from faster innovation, better integration of smart-home devices, and lower prices driven by scale. But regulators imagined something else entirely.
From the start, critics framed the deal as a threat rather than an opportunity. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) claimed that Amazon was “buying its way out of competition.” Advocacy groups called the merger “dangerous” and “threatening,” invoking fears of data surveillance and corporate dominance.
The European Commission led the charge, arguing that Amazon’s ownership of iRobot could restrict competition in robot vacuums. The claim strained credibility. The global robot vacuum market was fiercely competitive, dominated increasingly by Chinese firms such as Roborock, Ecovacs, and Dreame. Amazon’s interest was to expand output, improve quality, and accelerate innovation—precisely what competition is supposed to deliver.
The Federal Trade Commission followed suit. Although no evidence emerged that Amazon would raise prices, reduce quality, or exclude rivals, the agency made clear it opposed the deal. When the European Commission announced it would block the acquisition, the FTC applauded. Amazon and iRobot abandoned the transaction in early 2024.
The consequences were immediate. On the day the deal collapsed, iRobot announced it would lay off nearly one-third of its workforce. Without access to Amazon’s scale, capital, and AI capabilities, the robot vacuum pioneer continued to lose ground to Chinese competitors. The bankruptcy filing was the end of a long decline that regulators helped set in motion.
Ironically, many of the worries expressed by those opposing the Amazon deal are coming to pass. Instead of being owned by a US company subject to American law and oversight, iRobot’s technology and household mapping data will now be controlled in China, which already accounts for roughly 70 percent of the global smart-vacuum market. And its lead will grow even faster with iRobot moving to the country.
This is not an isolated mistake. It is part of a broader shift in antitrust enforcement away from consumer welfare and toward ideological hostility to scale, vertical integration, and successful American firms. In that worldview, mergers are presumed harmful, efficiency is treated with suspicion, and market dynamics are stalled by pet theories.
But economies are not static. They evolve through experimentation, investment, and consumer decisions. Successes and failures should be based on whether consumers value products—not whether regulators approve of the companies behind them. When governments block transactions that would allow firms to adapt, the regulators freeze the targeted firms in place while the rest of the world moves on.
The history of American antitrust shows that the most enduring monopolies are often created not by markets, but by government intervention. When regulators substitute their judgment for that of investors and consumers, they inevitably dismantle viable firms, protecting no one in the process.
The collapse of iRobot is a cautionary tale. Antitrust enforcement that ignores global competition, dismisses efficiencies, and treats American success as a problem will not strengthen markets. It will weaken them—and hand tomorrow’s industries to foreign competitors willing to move faster.
If the goal of antitrust is to promote competition and protect consumers, then the iRobot saga should prompt serious reflection. Because this time, the cost was plain for all to see: The loss of an American innovator, its workforce, and its future.
The post How Antitrust Enforcers Helped Kill an American Innovator appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.
