The EU Wants to Stop Mars’ $36B Snack Monopoly… But One Age-Old “Rule” Might Blow Up Their Case

If you’ve been glued to the top NFL storylines this offseason (because of course you have), then you’ve definitely heard about Shemar Stewart and the Bengals playing “Who Blinks First?” over guaranteed money. Stewart says the team’s trying to screw him with a contract twist that’s never been done before. The Bengals say… well, actually, they haven’t said much. But they’re getting crushed by the media for being cheap (you could say their reputation precedes them).

Now swap out cleats for corporate lawyers and shoulder pads for chocolate bars… because we’ve got a snack sized version of that same standoff playing out in the boardrooms of Europe. Mars (the people who brought you M&M’s, Snickers, and any other health food you can think of) is trying to drop $36 billion to buy Kellanova. That’s the newly spun-off snack company formerly tied to Kellogg’s, which owns Pringles, Pop-Tarts, Cheez-Its, Eggo waffles, and basically 90% of every road trip snack aisle that has RFK up in arms.

Naturally, the EU antitrust regulators took one look at this and said, “Absolutely not, we’ve seen this movie before.” If you aren’t aware with the European Commission, they’re the people who step in when a company tries to get too big, especially in a way that could hurt consumers or crush competition. And they’re not thrilled with this deal. Their concern is that Mars would end up with way too much control over the snack industry across several European countries. And it goes way past candy and cookies. They’re worried about what’s called “portfolio effects.”

Portfolio effects happen when a company dominates one category and uses its massive product lineup to pressure retailers or push out rivals. For example, Mars could tell a grocery chain (say Walmart, but with bad teeth because it’s in England): “If you want to keep stocking our candy bars, you better give our Pringles display extra shelf space too.” That type of leverage can make it harder for smaller snack brands to compete, and might even lead to higher prices for consumers (although every billionaire in America would call it capitalism).

So the EU gave Mars a deadline (June 18) to propose “remedies.” Remedies are basically promises or changes the company agrees to make in order to ease those competition concerns. That could mean selling off some brands, capping prices, or agreeing not to bundle products in a way that hurts rivals. And what do you know… Mars responded by… doing nothing. They let the deadline come and go without offering a single concession. No asset sales. No restrictions. Nothing.

And because of that, the European Commission is now expected to launch a full-scale investigation once their initial review wraps up on June 25. That kind of investigation usually takes several months and could lead to Mars being forced to give up certain brands or change the terms of the deal entirely.

But here’s where it gets complicated. While the EU is worried, proving harm from portfolio effects is difficult. It’s not as simple as showing that Mars and Kellanova compete directly in the same category… like Snickers vs. Twix. This is about how the combination of so many popular brands could indirectly give Mars an unfair advantage.

That kind of argument doesn’t always hold up in court, and even if regulators succeed, it’s hard to fix. Selling one or two brands might not be enough if the whole issue is about how much influence the combined company would have across multiple categories. In the meantime, Kellanova’s stock has slipped (down around 1.6% since the missed remedies deadline) because naturally investors are nervous. A long investigation could delay or derail the deal entirely, and uncertainty is the last thing Wall Street wants when there’s $36 billion on the table.

So here’s where things stand: Mars wants to complete one of the biggest food mergers in recent history. The EU is preparing for a fight. And just like Shemar Stewart, Kellanova and Mars are holding their position, hoping the other side gives in first.

Of course, in these situations I always stand by the party who has the “Golden Rule” on their side... “He who has the gold, makes the rules.” So no, based on everything we’ve seen in the past… the EU’s not gonna stop this deal.

At the time of publishing this article, Stocks.News doesn’t hold positions in companies mentioned in the article.