The idea, proposed by the comment I was responding to, that regulators were just twiddling their thumbs and then only gave a thumbs down to Adobe after 15 months is wrong and completely misunderstands how the regulatory process for merger approval works.
What is also true is that the uk finished its phase 1 review (where they decide to send it for further phase 2 review) in June, so 9 months after the deal was announced. Phase 2 leads to changes in about 50% of deals. The phase 2 deadline was late February 2024, about 18 months later.
I don't think any of this is indicative of anyone sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs, but it’s clearly a slow process and that uncertainty clearly isn’t good for the parties involved.
tl;dr: Their was significant action less than a month after the announcement was made.
That's a little over a month after the announcement was made. That is "very early on" in the 15 month "sequence of events."
Keep in mind, this was the announcements. FTA: "The DOJ has been contacting customers and competitors of Adobe and Figma, as well as Figma’s venture capital investors, in recent weeks, the people said. According to one of the people, the DOJ has already issued civil investigative demands — information requests similar to subpoenas — an unusual move at this early juncture in the probe."
So, we are talking about significant action being taken less than a month after the announcement.
I'll grant you "very early on" is subjective, but I feel any reasonable person would say that this constitutes "very early on".
In short, I would urge you to look at the actual timeline of events around the CMA and the DOJ before you keep spreading an inaccurate factual understanding of the sequence of events here.
