As executives race to pursue major deals under President Trump, the uncertain Marvell-Lumentum merger and a U.K. warning on Unilever’s food business show how competition reviews can shape markets.
A rush to pursue large mergers under President Donald Trump’s administration is colliding with a basic question for regulators: whether deals that promise scale and strategic advantages will leave customers and smaller businesses with fewer meaningful choices.
Marvell Technology and Lumentum Holdings are preparing the Form S-4 registration statement and joint proxy materials for their proposed transaction, Marvell CEO Matt Murphy said in a Nov. 10 filing. The companies still expect the deal to close in the first half of calendar 2028 and say they will remain independent until then.
The long timeline is one source of uncertainty. Market commentary puts the chance of the transaction closing at roughly 50%, citing regulatory risk, the path to 2028 and questions involving China. Bloomberg described the proposed acquisition as a $115 billion bet on artificial-intelligence infrastructure, but the available reporting does not establish what market definitions or competitive effects regulators will examine.
Marvell says customers are making technology decisions now as optical connections expand into scale-up and scale-in data-center applications. It also cited uncertainty about how long AI infrastructure spending will last and whether data-center development could face restrictions after the midterm elections. Those arguments explain the company’s rationale; they do not show that combining the businesses would improve competition or lower costs for buyers.
A merger can promise coordinated investment and a broader product offering, while raising questions about pricing, access and customers’ bargaining power. The source material provides no detailed market-share analysis or projected consumer effects for Marvell-Lumentum, so those outcomes remain questions, not established consequences.
Marvell’s shares fell about 51% over the month to Nov. 10, compared with an average 49% decline among connectivity peers, according to the company. The stock was still up about 66% year to date. Share movements may reflect investor expectations, but cannot substitute for evidence about a merger’s effects on customers and rivals.
The political calendar may encourage companies to move quickly. Bloomberg reported that executives see an opportunity to pursue transformational deals while they regard regulators under Trump as relatively receptive to mergers. Deals requiring lengthy negotiations and reviews would likely need to be announced by mid-2027 to have a realistic path through the current window, the outlet reported. That forecast does not guarantee approval, and speed should not replace scrutiny.
Recent decisions show different outcomes. The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority said its first-phase review found that McCormick’s planned $44.8 billion acquisition of Unilever’s food business could harm competition. That is an early-stage finding, not a final ruling, but it puts the companies on notice that the authority has concerns to address.
By contrast, Bloomberg reported that the U.S. Department of Justice cleared Paramount Skydance’s $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery without antitrust remedies. The available material does not detail the DOJ’s reasoning, limiting what can be concluded about its assessment.
In aviation, JetBlue CEO Joanna Geraghty said the airline should focus on becoming healthy and ruled out merger discussions with a larger carrier. She also said reorganization was unnecessary. Her comments offer a counterpoint to the megadeal rush: a company’s stated priority need not be absorption by a bigger rival.
For customers and small businesses, the stakes are practical: how many suppliers remain, whether buyers can negotiate and whether competitors can enter. Regulators must test each merger’s likely effects and explain publicly when concentrated power is judged acceptable.
Greg Sanders serves as the Senior Correspondent for Corporate Power and Antitrust at Just Right News, where he brings a principled, conservative perspective to the complex intersection of big business, government regulation, and the American consumer. With a career dedicated to investigative depth and economic clarity, Greg has become a leading voice in examining how the consolidation of industry power impacts the foundational values of the free market and individual liberty.
Raised in Denver, Colorado, Greg’s reporting is deeply informed by the Western spirit of independence and a healthy skepticism of centralized authority. Growing up in the shadows of the Rockies, he witnessed firsthand the importance of local entrepreneurship and the vital role that small-medium enterprises play in sustaining vibrant communities. This upbringing instilled in him a belief that the American Dream is best preserved when the playing field remains level and when competition—rather than backroom deals between corporate lobbyists and federal regulators—dictates success. For Greg, the rugged individualism of his home state serves as a constant reminder that the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.
Now based in Chicago, Illinois, Greg operates from the heart of the nation’s industrial and financial crossroads. His location in the Midwest provides him with a unique vantage point to observe the real-world consequences of corporate overreach. From the boardrooms of the Loop to the manufacturing hubs that define the region, he tracks the movement of capital and the shifting tides of market influence. Chicago’s history as a center of trade and labor offers a rich backdrop for his work, allowing him to bridge the gap between high-level economic theory and the lived experiences of hardworking Americans who feel the squeeze of monopolistic practices.
At Just Right News, Greg’s beat focuses on the “new monopolies” and the rise of “woke” corporate culture. He argues that when corporations become too large, they often abandon their fiduciary duties to shareholders in favor of social engineering and political posturing. His reporting seeks to hold these “Titans” accountable, ensuring that the power of the purse is not used to silence dissent or bypass the democratic process. He is a firm advocate for the idea that true conservatism requires a vigilant defense of competition, preventing any single entity—public or private—from exerting undue control over the lives of citizens.
This mission is most clearly seen in his acclaimed feature series, “The Titans and the Toll.” In this ongoing project, Greg explores the human cost of market consolidation, from the erosion of consumer choice to the decline of local economies. Through rigorous analysis and boots-on-the-ground reporting, he documents how the concentration of power in sectors like tech, agriculture, and finance creates a “toll” paid by the average family.
Greg Sanders remains committed to the idea that a transparent, competitive market is the greatest engine for prosperity ever devised. Through his work at Just Right News, he continues to provide the essential oversight necessary to protect that engine from the encroaching influence of corporate giants and the bureaucratic structures that enable them.