In late 2025, the Federal Trade Commission sued to stop Henkel from buying the Liquid Nails brand. They said the deal would take away a major competitor in the U.S. construction adhesive market. The products in question may seem niche, but this case is a perfect example of how modern antitrust enforcement handles horizontal mergers between companies that are very similar.

Henkel, the company that makes Loctite construction adhesives, has agreed to buy Liquid Nails, which is one of its biggest competitors in the retail channel. Major home improvement stores like Home Depot and Lowe's always have both brands in stock. Both brands are very popular with both DIYers and professionals for heavy-duty bonding jobs.

The FTC is worried that merging the two brands would leave customers with fewer real choices in a market that is already dominated by a few companies.

The FTC's main complaint is that Loctite and Liquid Nails are each other's closest competitors. The agency says that the two brands compete fiercely on price, sales, product features, and where their products are placed on store shelves. The FTC says that this competition has helped keep prices down and pushed for new ideas.

If Henkel bought Liquid Nails, it would no longer have to deal with that direct competition. The FTC says that even if other brands stay on the shelf, none would be able to keep prices in check as well as Liquid Nails does right now. This is a classic case of unilateral effects in antitrust law. The merger is said to give the new company an incentive to raise prices because it combines two companies that were previously competing with each other.

The FTC says that the relevant market is only construction adhesives sold in stores, and not other things like caulks, sealants, or fasteners. The agency says that people looking for heavy-duty construction adhesives don't see these other options as close substitutes, and that brand reputation and performance claims are very important.

This definition of the market is important because it shows why the FTC thinks the merger is bad, even though, in theory, customers could "use something else." The Commission thinks they usually don't, at least not when prices go up a little bit but are still important.

Henkel has said that the merger might make things more efficient or that competition from other brands would keep any damage to a minimum. The FTC strongly disagrees with both points.

The complaint argues that entry is difficult due to brand loyalty, limited shelf space, and the importance of established reputations in retail. It also says that the parties haven't shown that the merger will lead to efficiencies that are big enough to make up for the loss of competition. The FTC doesn't think that consumers would get the savings from the merger, even if it does save money.

The Henkel–Liquid Nails case shows a few bigger trends in antitrust enforcement:

It also shows how modern merger challenges are more and more combining legal doctrine with economic ideas about substitution, pricing incentives, and how people act as consumers.

It is still unclear if the FTC will win in court. But the complaint makes it clear that in today's world of enforcement, mergers between close competitors, even in product markets that seem boring, are closely watched. The message is clear for companies thinking about making similar deals: if you buy your closest competitor, the FTC will look closely.