HOW THE TARGET OF A GOOGLE TAKEOVER TRIMMED ITS ASSETS TO AVOID FTC REVIEW
▶ Tech giant’s acquisition of Invite Media in 2010 could be among a number of purchases under renewed scrutiny
Something unusual was under way in early 2010 at Invite Media, a Philadelphia advertising technology start-up. Under normal circumstances, it collected money from marketers and used it to buy digital advertisements. But over two days that spring it suddenly began paying for a wave of ads without waiting for checks to come in, using its own money instead. The company also paid off all its outstanding bills regardless of their due dates, sending its bank account balances plunging.
It would normally be irrational for a company to burn cash unnecessarily, but in this case burning cash was the whole point. Invite’s co-founders were finalising a deal to sell the company to Google, and reducing Invite’s assets was a key part of their preparation.
By drawing down its bank account, Invite could reduce its total assets to a low enough level that the companies could avoid submitting their deal for review to the Federal Trade Commission.
“What we did was we collected as much accounts receivable as possible and immediately paid out everything we could so we didn’t have enough money on the books to trigger the FTC stuff,” says Michael Provenzano, one of the company’s co-founders.
Mr Provenzano says he effectively went to the company’s bank and said: “We need you to be OK with our account dropping to a dollar.”
The strategy worked.
Google bought the company for around $80 million (Dh294m) in 2010. It did not ask the FTC for pre-approval under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which requires that companies do so when making acquisitions large enough to raise competitive questions.
Now that the market power of Google and other huge tech companies has come under new scrutiny, the FTC is re-examining hundreds of deals that, such as Invite, did not spark its interest when they happened. Officials at the commission now say they may have missed the significance of some deals that were small enough to avoid Hart-Scott-Rodino review when they happened.
FTC officials began scrutinising these deals as far back as autumn last year, when they met with a representative from a start-up that had been bought by a large tech company in a deal that was not reviewed at the time but could be investigated now.
Mark Rosenberg, a researcher at a Yale University antitrust group, pegged Invite as “absolutely a viable candidate” for review under the new special order. He also flagged Google’s acquisition of Apture,
Amazon’s purchase of Blink, and Facebook’s purchase of Beluga and Gowalla.
The market for online display ads was a multibillion-dollar opportunity for Google, and its success in developing advertising technology was a primary way it became one of the world’s most valuable companies.
Acquisitions were key to this transformation. Google purchased the advertising exchange DoubleClick for $3.1 billion in 2007, and the mobile advertising company AdMob for $750m in 2009.
Both deals prompted antitrust reviews, with accompanying costs.
“The review meant we had eight months of limbo that ended up being really hard because we did not know what was going to happen,” AdMob founder Omar Hamoui says, according to an excerpt of the book Mad Men of Mobile.
“I had gone from an overwhelming high to a crushingly disappointing low, which was extremely frustrating.”
In retrospect, Invite had been serving as an important independent piece of the advertising market. As a start-up, it had created a software tool, called a demand-side platform, to make it simpler for marketers to buy ads online. The service allowed them to shop for advertising space on multiple platforms at once. Ad purchasers did not need to go to Google for ads and Yahoo for banner ads – Invite could help marketers find the best deal at a given time and buy from either platform.
After acquiring Invite, Google made the start-up’s tech a core piece of its suite of ad tech tools. By doing this, Google removed the neutral layer that separated it from ad buyers, according to Bill Demas, who led one of Invite’s main competitors for many years. The edge Google got from combining tools such as Invite into a single product amounted to an “unfair advantage”, he says. “It was a very prescient acquisition because it was done so early,” Mr Demas adds.
A spokeswoman for the FTC declined to comment. A Google spokeswoman said:
“Former Google employees have created more than 2,000 start-ups, including companies like Pinterest, Quip and Instagram – that is orders of magnitude more than the number of companies we have acquired. We have a long track record of working constructively with regulators and answering questions they have about our business.”
Mr Provenzano says he remembers being given a spreadsheet of tasks to accomplish before the deal could close. One of the key tasks: drawing down the company’s bank account.
Mr Provenzano was sure about how and why this was done, he says, “because I moved the money”.
Mr Provenzano says he could not remember whether Google instructed Invite on how to avoid the additional scrutiny, nor could David Horowitz, an Invite board member. But Mr Horowitz says the company would have taken its cues from Google. Another person close to the deal confirmed that the company worked to avoid Hart-Scott-Rodino review.
The report by the FTC could provide impetus for a larger investigation or for Congressional legislation
It is legal for companies to lower the size of a deal or cut down on assets to avoid Hart-Scott-Rodino review, according to Paul Jin, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter. “It could cause the FTC to say I don’t like that, it’s suspicious,” he says, adding that is not against the commission’s rules and is fairly common.
Two of Invite’s four co-founders – Nat Turner and Zach Weinberg – founded another start-up called FlatIron Health, with significant financial backing from Google Ventures. They sold it for $1.9bn to healthcare giant Roche in 2018.
Both declined to comment, as did Jason Harinstein, the man who helped drive the Invite acquisition for Google. He currently serves as FlatIron’s chief financial officer.
It is not clear what the FTC hopes to achieve with its review of past acquisitions. The commission has held open the possibility of unwinding past deals. Given the ongoing investigations by the FTC and the Department of Justice, it may instead issue a report of its findings, according to Daniel Crane, a law professor at the University of Michigan. That report could provide fodder for a larger investigation or for Congressional legislation, he said.
Mr Demas, the former chief executive of Turn, the Invite competitor, says the deal “frightened” his team. But it took a few years for the consequences to play out, as Google integrated Invite’s software into its own codebase. Eventually, Google began to prevent competitors such as Mr Demas from selling its ad inventory, leading business to slow.
There were concerns about Google’s market power at the time. The FTC conducted a wide-ranging investigation into Google’s search advertising business, but closed the case in January 2013 without fining the company.
“The evidence did not demonstrate that Google’s actions in this area stifled competition in violation of US law,” the FTC said at the time.
Mr Demas says the FTC summoned him to Washington some months later to discuss
Google, but nothing seemed to come of it. He says government officials are at a disadvantage trying to keep up with a field evolving as quickly as advertising technology. “They really knew their stuff,” says Mr Demas, of the FTC lawyers he met with. “But you have to anticipate some of these moves.”
Mr Demas’s company struggled in the years after Google’s acquisition of Invite. Turn cut staff in 2015, and two years later sold itself to a subsidiary of a Singaporean telecoms company for about half the price of its valuation in 2013, when it had been considering an initial public offering.
Invite’s co-founders felt they had lucked out by selling before Google bought one of its rivals, according to Mr Provenzano.
“I don’t know what would have happened if we kept going forward. Obviously we would have been competing with Google,” he says. “Why go through that battle?”