But it’s not a sure thing.

In melding Omnicom and IPG, the deal will create the world’s largest advertising group. In some countries, the new conglomerate will take on an enormous share of the media-buying and advertising market. In New Zealand, for example, the combined entity could gain a 55% market share overnight, according to industry advocacy group Independent Media Agencies New Zealand.

So before the champagne bottles can be uncorked, the deal has to pass muster with a number of competition regulators in key markets around the globe, including Britain and Australia. 

Let’s look at some of the relevant players, and how their moves might yet put a kink in the Omnicom-IPG mega deal.

The FTC isn’t finished quite yet

Both parties have agreed to abide by a “consent order” issued by the FTC which (in theory) will prevent the new company from exerting undue influence over publishers in the U.S. But the highly unusual agreement isn’t the end of the story. 

The FTC’s now opened the floor to allow interested parties to formally make public comments on the merger for 30 days; final approval will come once that window closes.

The public comment stage is unlikely to derail the deal by itself. “While the FTC is obligated to invite comments, it isn’t required to listen to them,” said Ray Seilie, litigator at Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir LLP (KHIKS), in an email.

But it could expose the company to further political pressure from the current presidential administration and its outriders — who might feel the consent order doesn’t go far enough in enforcing their idea of political neutrality on advertisers.

“It will be interesting to see which groups choose to submit comments and what positions they end up taking. But it would be unusual, especially with this administration, for those comments to result in a confession of error and a revision of the consent order,” said Seilie.

What about beyond the U.S.?

“We continue to look forward to obtaining the remaining regulatory approvals and closing in the second half of this year, consistent with our expectations when we announced this transaction,” Omnicom CEO John Wren said in a statement earlier this week. Top of the list? Britain’s Competitions Markets Authority (CMA). In 2023, the U.K. accounted for 8.5% of Omnicom’s global revenues and 6.3% of IPG’s, according to analysis by Campaign.

Though its involvement in the merger is technically voluntary, the CMA has already kicked off a 40-day formal inquiry into the deal. That can lead to a number of outcomes. The Authority might stage a deeper investigation, which could take as long as 18 months. It might prohibit the merger outright in Britain, or it might accept it — with or without strings attached.

Paolo Palmigiano, head of the competition, trade and foreign investment practice at law firm Taylor Wessing, said that should the CMA choose to add conditions to its approval, they’re more likely to be structural, rather than try to restrict its investment choices like the FTC’s order does.

“It normally is a remedy like divestment from a unit or something similar,” he said.

Anyone else?

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) is also looking at the merger, as is the EU Commission. The former’s due to release its findings July 27th.

Meanwhile, 10 competition authorities have already given the nod to Omincom and IPG, including the Competition Commission of India (CCI), as well as similar bodies in New Zealand, China, Japan, Brazil and Singapore. 

Do regulators pay attention to decisions taken in other countries?

The FTC, CMA and counterpart organisations do cooperate for cross-border mergers. “It suits [all] parties for the competition authorities to talk, because then it’s faster,” said Palmigiano. Mostly that takes place on an informal basis though in some cases, a regulator might ask for a formal waiver from the companies in question to collaborate with another regulator.

But the bottom line is that each regulator only has jurisdiction over their own market — and approval in one territory doesn’t necessarily mean the dominos will fall Omnicom’s way in another. “Their legal standards are different, so just because the U.S. believes a merger is competitive (subject to the consent order) does not mean that these other countries will automatically reach the same conclusion,” said Seilie.

Is this just about legal process?

Not just. Bodies like the FTC and the CMA are independent, but that doesn’t mean they’re untouched by broader political philosophies.

Under former chair Lina Khan, the FTC expanded its use of antitrust law into a broader means of curtailing the power of the tech sector. Under her successor Andrew Ferguson, it has continued that practice. And reading between the lines of his statement on the Omnicom merger, it’s apparent the FTC saw a chance to send a strong signal to the advertising sector about where it places clients’ media dollars.

“We are presented… [with] a troubling history of collusion to the detriment of consumers and the free conduct of American political discourse and elections,” he wrote. “In the absence of any intervention, the proposed acquisition is likely to substantially reduce competition and may enhance the vulnerability to coordinated effects.”

Similarly in recent years, the CMA has been willing to pose difficult questions of acquiring companies. Its reservations delayed Microsoft and Activision’s 2023 merger by several months and sparked a minor political row before eventually greenlighting the deal.

But influence from Britain’s Labour government on the CMA means its attitude toward mergers might become more forgiving. In January, chancellor of the exchequer Rachel Reeves suggested the CMA, alongside other regulators like Ofcom, should be working harder to support the U.K. economy.

“Every regulator, no matter what sector, has a part to play by tearing down the regulatory barriers that hold back growth,” she said at the start of the year.

Shortly afterwards the CMA’s chair Marcus Bokkerink was dismissed and replaced by Doug Gurr, a former Amazon executive. “The reason was to give a clear signal to the regulator: ‘This is the line you have to toe.’ It’s all about growth,” said Palmigiano.

The regulator is still independent. And it still has teeth. Just this week, the CMA said it wanted to set more binding rules around how Google operates search in the U.K. and how publishers’ content is used, including AI Overviews.

So, whether a pro-growth agenda leads to a softer touch in Omnicom’s case remains to be seen. “We haven’t seen that yet,” cautioned Palmigiano.

Update: This article was amended to correctly describe the status of New Zealand’s Commerce Commission’s inquiry.