<p>Generally, antitrust regulators have authority over any company doing business inside the zone of its control, hence why <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/technology/eu-google-fine.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the EU antitrust regulators hit Google in 2017</a>, or <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3505_en.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the EU's recent examination of US company Apple's attempted acquisition of another US based technology firm, Shazam</a>.</p>

<p>Of course, for these companies, there's always the option of simply pulling out of those markets (not selling any goods or services, or holding any capital inside their borders) which dodges their authority. But given the size of these markets (US, China and the EU particularly), that's simply not a feasible option.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-23T11:12:55.790Z
So you can have a company based in the Netherlands, doing business in China, being sollicited a take-over / buy-out offer from a company based in the USA , having to comply to Chinese antitrust regulators, if they [Dutch company] want to keep doing business in China? That is what you're saying, right?
Mussé Redi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-08T14:17:21.513Z
2018-06-08T14:17:21.513Z
AndrewC
<p>Qualcomm is currently awaiting Chinese regulatory approval for its acquisition of rival NXP.</p>

<p>Both companies aren't based in China. I'd understand that vehicles like tariffs can be used by countries to exercise control over certain trade inbalances, but how could government <em>block</em> a takeover taking place outside of its sovereignity? Are anti-trust laws of international nature, in some case?</p>

<p>Is the rationale behind this case the same as US technology companies operating in the European Union, with regards to anti-monopoly policy? No long ago, I recall Google being fined by the European Commission on monopoly charges with regards to some of its services in the EU. The case of NXP's takeover seems of an entirely different nature.</p>

<monopoly>
Why do anti-trust regulators in China need to approve NXP's takeover?
Mussé Redi
# Why do anti-trust regulators in China need to approve NXP's takeover?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-08)

Qualcomm is currently awaiting Chinese regulatory approval for its acquisition of rival NXP.

Both companies aren't based in China. I'd understand that vehicles like tariffs can be used by countries to exercise control over certain trade inbalances, but how could government *block* a takeover taking place outside of its sovereignity? Are anti-trust laws of international nature, in some case?

Is the rationale behind this case the same as US technology companies operating in the European Union, with regards to anti-monopoly policy? No long ago, I recall Google being fined by the European Commission on monopoly charges with regards to some of its services in the EU. The case of NXP's takeover seems of an entirely different nature.

**Tags:** monopoly


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-06-08. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Generally, antitrust regulators have authority over any company doing business inside the zone of its control, hence why [the EU antitrust regulators hit Google in 2017](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/technology/eu-google-fine.html), or [the EU's recent examination of US company Apple's attempted acquisition of another US based technology firm, Shazam](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3505_en.htm).

Of course, for these companies, there's always the option of simply pulling out of those markets (not selling any goods or services, or holding any capital inside their borders) which dodges their authority. But given the size of these markets (US, China and the EU particularly), that's simply not a feasible option.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So you can have a company based in the Netherlands, doing business in China, being sollicited a take-over / buy-out offer from a company based in the USA , having to comply to Chinese antitrust regulators, if they [Dutch company] want to keep doing business in China? That is what you're saying, right?  

---

