Shutterstock shares crash 29% after Getty Images calls off $3.7 billion merger

Shares of Shutterstock plunged nearly 30% on Tuesday after Getty Images scrapped its planned merger with the stock image provider following objections from the UK competition regulator.

Getty Images said it had terminated the proposed merger after the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) insisted that Shutterstock sell its editorial business as a condition for approving the deal.

The proposed merger, announced in January last year, would have created a $3.7 billion visual content giant, combining two of the biggest names in the licensed images industry as they sought to strengthen their position in the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence landscape.


Following the announcement, Getty Images shares jumped about 26% in extended trading to $1.08, while Shutterstock shares slumped nearly 30%, reflecting investor disappointment over the collapse of the deal.

Also Read: US Stocks: Meta building cloud business to sell AI computing, says report; shares rise
The merger was aimed at creating a larger platform with an extensive library of photos, videos and other visual assets to better compete in an era where generative AI is reshaping the content licensing business.

However, regulatory concerns over competition ultimately derailed the transaction, with the UK watchdog seeking divestment of Shutterstock’s editorial business to address antitrust issues. Getty chose to abandon the deal rather than proceed under those conditions.

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority in May had cleared the merger, contingent on Shutterstock selling its editorial arm to address concerns over the supply of news content in the country.

The collapse of the merger leaves both companies to navigate intensifying competition from AI-powered image generation tools independently, even as demand for licensed visual content continues to evolve.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of Economic Times)