The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit to block German chemical giant Henkel’s planned $725 million acquisition of the iconic construction adhesive brand Liquid Nails. On the surface, this looks like just another cross-border merger gone awry. But dig deeper, and you’ll find that this humble tube of household glue has become a litmus test for global industrial consolidation and the resolve of antitrust regulators worldwide. The FTC’s move isn’t just about stopping one deal—it’s a declaration of war on unchecked corporate concentration, especially in industries that hit everyday American households where it hurts: their wallets.
Let’s set the scene: December 18, 2025, the FTC drops its lawsuit, sending shockwaves through the global coatings and building materials sector. At a time when the industry is in the throes of a consolidation frenzy—BASF spinning off its coatings business, AkzoNobel and Axalta in merger talks, PPG aggressively divesting assets—Henkel saw acquiring Liquid Nails as a shortcut to dominance in the U.S. construction adhesive market. Instead, it ran head-on into a regulatory wall. The FTC didn’t pull punches: “You’re not optimizing efficiency—you’re eliminating competition.” What’s unfolding here is a clash of two competing logics: the corporate drive to build empires, and the regulatory mandate to protect public interest.
Liquid Nails: More Than Glue—The Backbone of a Competitive Market
To the average shopper, Liquid Nails is just another product on a hardware store shelf. But to American homeowners and DIY enthusiasts, it’s a trusted companion—essential for installing baseboards, securing shower enclosures, and countless other home improvement projects. Professionally, it’s been Henkel’s Loctite brand’s biggest rival for years, battling fiercely for shelf space at Home Depot and Lowe’s, competing on price, performance, and promotions.
This duopoly—concentrated yet fiercely competitive—is exactly why the FTC stepped in. The agency’s complaint spells it out clearly: “Henkel and Liquid Nails regard each other as their primary competitors, and the merger would eliminate the most critical counterbalance in the market.” If the deal went through, the combined company would control nearly 60% of the U.S. liquid construction adhesive market, creating a de facto oligopoly. Without meaningful competition, price hikes, product quality cuts, and slower innovation wouldn’t just be possible—they’d be rational business moves. And who pays the price? Ordinary homeowners.
Context matters here: Liquid Nails isn’t a standalone brand. It’s part of Pittsburgh Paints Company, which spun off from PPG in late 2024 (along with other household names like Glidden and Olympic). PPG’s goal was to streamline operations and focus on industrial coatings, but it inadvertently created a nimble, consumer-focused competitor with a full product portfolio and strong retail reach. The FTC has no interest in letting this newly minted market balancer get swallowed up by Henkel.
A Regulatory Awakening Amid Global “Big Eats Small” Frenzy
The Henkel-Liquid Nails case isn’t an outlier—it’s a symptom of a much larger trend. Over the past two years, mega-deals have dominated the global coatings industry: In October 2024, BASF sold a majority stake in its coatings division to Carlyle for €5.8 billion; a month later, AkzoNobel announced merger talks with Axalta to create a $17 billion behemoth. Behind these moves is a collective industry anxiety: volatile raw material prices, mounting environmental pressures, and stagnant growth have made “scale up or die” the unspoken mantra.
But regulators are pushing back. FTC Chair Lina Khan has repeatedly emphasized that “efficiency gains cannot come at the cost of competition.” Nowhere is this more true than in sectors tied to daily life—construction materials, pharmaceuticals, food packaging—where antitrust scrutiny is shifting from an “efficiency-first” mindset to a “consumer welfare-first” approach. In the Henkel case, the FTC made a strategic choice to frame the lawsuit around “the cost of home construction and maintenance,” turning an abstract competition issue into a tangible financial concern for every American.
It’s a devastatingly effective narrative strategy. Imagine a judge asking: “Would you pay $50 more for a tube of glue?” The answer is obvious. By speaking in everyday language, the FTC is reshaping antitrust discourse, forcing courts to look beyond corporate promises of “synergies” and “cost optimization” and focus on real people’s experiences.
Recent Major Mergers in the Global Coatings Sector: A Regulatory Snapshot
Parties Involved | Transaction Description | Regulatory Stance | Core Concern |
BASF vs. Carlyle | Majority stake sale of BASF Coatings | EU approved with conditions | Industrial coatings concentration |
AkzoNobel vs. Axalta | Full global merger | Under deep review in multiple jurisdictions | Monopoly risk in automotive refinish & protective coatings |
Henkel vs. Liquid Nails | Acquisition of construction adhesive brand | FTC filed lawsuit to block | Consumer price hikes & suppressed innovation |
The pattern is clear: The closer a market segment is to end consumers—and the more it impacts daily expenses—the lower regulators’ tolerance for consolidation. Henkel stepped right over that red line.
Business Logic vs. Market Logic: Who Gets to Define “Efficiency”?
Henkel and Pittsburgh Paints argue that the deal would bring supply chain integration, increased R&D investment, and better customer service. This is classic corporate-centric logic: Improve internal efficiency, and society benefits.
But the FTC is championing a market-centric logic that directly counters this: True efficiency is born from competition. Without rivals, “efficiency” becomes static, complacent, even extractive. History is full of cautionary tales—Microsoft’s browser bundling in the 1990s, Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices—all examples of what happens when companies prioritize empire-building over competition.
Even more insidious is the threat to innovation diversity. Loctite excels in industrial-grade instant adhesives; Liquid Nails dominates in weather-resistant, user-friendly formulations for home use. A merger would likely shift R&D resources toward high-margin industrial products, sacrificing iterative improvements for DIY users. The FTC calls this “invisible innovation suppression”—and it’s far more damaging than overt price hikes.
The Weight of One Tube: Toppling the Illusion of “Bigger Is Better”
Whether the Henkel-Liquid Nails deal collapses or survives in modified form, it’s already sent a clear message: Amid the global frenzy of industrial consolidation, regulators are recalibrating the scales. Companies can no longer assume that “bigger is better” is inherently justified, nor can they hide market dominance behind the rhetoric of “efficiency.”
For Henkel, this is a strategic setback. For the entire industry, it’s a necessary wake-up call. Real competitiveness isn’t bought by swallowing rivals—it’s forged in relentless rivalry. When a single tube of adhesive can trigger a national antitrust lawsuit, every corporate giant dreaming of “winning by acquisition” needs to understand: Markets may consolidate, but the spark of competition must never be extinguished.
After all, what matters to consumers isn’t who owns Liquid Nails. It’s whether, tomorrow at Home Depot, they’ll still have two or three trusted brands to choose from—and whether they can believe that each one is fighting to be better, cheaper, and more reliable. That’s the soul of a market economy.
