This week, iRobot — a pioneering American technology company — announced it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and will be acquired by its primary Chinese manufacturer and lender, Picea. As a result, an iconic U.S. innovator in consumer robotics will become wholly Chinese-owned.
This outcome was not inevitable and raises important questions about how U.S. and allied regulatory decisions affect the ability of American technology companies to compete globally.
A Missed Opportunity to Strengthen an American Innovator
In early 2024, Amazon and iRobot terminated a proposed acquisition that would have kept iRobot American-owned and better positioned to compete in an increasingly consolidated global market. The companies cited regulatory opposition in Europe, stating that the transaction had no viable path to approval in the European Union.
The deal would have provided iRobot with the capital, scale, and operational support needed to continue investing in innovation, support U.S. jobs, and deliver more affordable products to consumers. Instead, the transaction was abandoned — and iRobot was left without a viable alternative to compete at scale.
Regulatory Decisions Have Real-World Consequences
Some policymakers and advocacy groups welcomed the termination of the deal, viewing it through a narrow antitrust lens. But the immediate consequences underscored the risks of evaluating transactions in isolation from broader competitive realities.
On the same day the deal collapsed, iRobot announced layoffs affecting roughly 31% of its workforce and raised concerns about its long-term viability. What followed was not a resurgence of competition, but a rapid erosion of an American company’s ability to survive.
As Amazon’s CEO later noted, iRobot was already facing intense competition from well-capitalized Chinese firms operating at global scale. Without the ability to grow or partner, American companies are left at a disadvantage in markets where foreign competitors benefit from size, speed, and coordinated industrial strategies.
Global Competition Can’t Be an Afterthought
The smart home and consumer robotics markets, like most technology markets, are no longer regional. Today, Chinese companies control an estimated 70 percent of the global smart vacuum market. With iRobot’s acquisition, American leadership in this category continues to shrink.
These outcomes should concern policymakers across the political spectrum. U.S. companies operate under strict domestic laws, oversight, and accountability. When regulatory decisions push innovation, ownership, and manufacturing overseas, the long-term implications for jobs, data security, and global competitiveness deserve careful consideration.
A Broader Lesson for U.S. Tech Policy
The lesson from iRobot is not that antitrust enforcement is unimportant, rather it is that competitiveness, innovation, and national interest must be part of the conversation.
Policymakers should be asking whether current regulatory frameworks give American technology companies a fair chance to scale and compete globally, especially in strategic and fast-moving technology markets. A more holistic approach — one that balances competition policy with innovation, workforce impacts, and global leadership — is essential.
If the United States wants to remain the world’s leading technology economy, we must ensure that well-intentioned regulatory decisions do not inadvertently weaken the very companies driving American innovation.