Figma’s move toward a public offering gave former Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan an example of a startup creating value independently after a proposed acquisition fell apart. But the sequence does not prove that regulatory scrutiny caused Figma’s later success—or that the outcome would have been worse if Adobe had bought the company.
What happened to the Adobe–Figma deal?
Adobe and Figma announced a proposed merger in 2022. Figma’s SEC filing records September 15, 2022, as the date of the merger agreement. The deal was never completed.
On December 18, 2023, the companies jointly announced that they were ending the agreement after about 15 months of regulatory review. They said they no longer saw a clear path to regulatory approval. That is the parties’ stated explanation; the available account does not establish a complete set of findings by each reviewing authority or show that one regulator issued a final order blocking the merger.
A 2024 investment research report put the proposed transaction’s value at $20 billion and reported that Adobe paid Figma a $1 billion breakup fee. Those figures come from that secondary report. The fee was paid in connection with the abandoned deal; it was not money raised in Figma’s public offering.
#1 Best Overall
What did Khan say the Figma IPO showed?
In an August 2, 2025, TechCrunch report, Khan described Figma’s public-market trajectory as “a great reminder that letting startups grow into independently successful businesses, rather than be bought up by existing giants, can generate enormous value.” She also called the outcome “a win for employees, investors, innovation, and the public.”
Figma had announced on July 1, 2025, that it had publicly filed a proposed S-1 registration statement and applied to list on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker FIG. Its announcement described an offering that was still subject to market conditions. The filing announcement establishes the company’s plan to seek a public listing; it does not, by itself, establish the terms or performance of a completed offering.
In a July 31, 2025, founder letter, CEO Dylan Field said that public-market access and community ownership were among the reasons to go public. He cautioned, “That’s not a promise of share price growth,” and said Figma could continue investing and pursuing acquisitions. His warning is about investment expectations, not the merits of the antitrust review.
Does the IPO prove scrutiny helped Figma?
No. The timeline supports a narrower conclusion: the proposed acquisition ended after regulatory review, and Figma later pursued public-market access as an independent company. It does not establish that the review caused Figma to succeed, that the IPO would not have happened otherwise, or what Figma would have become under Adobe ownership.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThat gap is a counterfactual problem. To show that scrutiny created value, one would need to compare Figma’s actual path with a credible estimate of its path if the merger had closed. The later public offering alone cannot make that comparison.
| Interpretation | What supports it | What it cannot establish |
|---|---|---|
| Khan’s view: allowing Figma to grow independently created value that an acquisition might have foreclosed. | Figma remained independent after the deal ended and later filed for a proposed public offering; Khan pointed to that trajectory as evidence of the potential value of independent startups. | The sequence does not isolate the effect of regulatory scrutiny from Figma’s own business performance or show what would have happened under Adobe. |
| Causal-skeptic view: Figma’s own product and execution explain its success. | TechCrunch quoted Wedbush analyst Dan Ives saying Figma was successful because of its innovation, “and not due to the FTC and [Khan].” | That competing explanation also does not prove the merger would have been better or worse for employees, investors, competition, or customers. |
Both interpretations can recognize Figma’s independent growth while disagreeing about what caused it. The available evidence does not resolve that disagreement.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What should investors and employees take from the story?
For investors, an IPO filing is not a guarantee of a favorable share price or future growth. Field’s letter explicitly disclaimed a promise of share-price appreciation. The proposed listing and the rationale for going public should be kept separate from any conclusion about a stock’s eventual performance.
For employees, Khan’s argument highlights a possible benefit of independence: a company may continue growing outside a large incumbent, with employees among those who can benefit from that growth. It does not show how the merger would have treated Figma employees or what their eventual financial outcomes would have been.
For readers assessing antitrust policy, the case is an illustration of the stakes, not a conclusive test of whether scrutiny was successful. The parties’ decision to abandon the transaction and Figma’s later IPO effort are observable; the merger counterfactual remains unknown.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
