After the waves of relocation linked to more flexible regulations, a new risk of loss of sovereignty is confirmed, that of the takeover of strategic players by foreign groups, no longer for industrial reasons, but because of regulatory frameworks that have become too restrictive. In this case, the veto by the European authorities of the acquisition by Amazon in 2023 deprived iRobot of strategic support which could have secured its future.
Founded in 1990 by three MIT engineers, iRobot made technological history with the launch of Roomba, the first consumer robot vacuum cleaner. In more than 30 years, the company has sold more than 50 million units worldwide, becoming an iconic figure in domestic robotics innovation. But since 2021, the company has faced a continuous fall in its results with supply chains under strain, intensifying Asian competition, and the inability to find a second industrial wind.
The takeover attempt by Amazon, announced in 2022 and valued at $1.7 billion, could have offered an exit from the top. But the operation was blocked at the start of 2024 by the European Commission, citing risks of competitive distortion. Deprived of strategic relay and faced with a wall of debt, iRobot warned at the end of the year that a bankruptcy filing was under consideration.
The announcement is now official, the company is filing for US Chapter 11 protection, paving the way for restructuring. In this context, the entire capital will be transferred to Shenzhen PICEA RoboticsChinese manufacturer of robot vacuum cleaners and the firm’s main creditor, alongside Santrum Hong Kong. Historical shareholders will be completely diluted. The company will remain active, continuing to pay its suppliers and manage its employees, but under new ownership.
In a context where competition law and antitrust regulations limit industrial consolidation in the West, players like iRobot become vulnerable to foreign takeover, including in industries they themselves created. The iRobot case therefore does not constitute a simple episode of bankruptcy but illustrates a broader dynamic of transfer of value, where the law guillotines a pioneer.
