The highly anticipated antitrust trial against Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, began in Washington on Monday. The case, brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenges Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion, arguing that these purchases were designed to stifle competition and eliminate emerging rivals in the social media market, reports BBC.
FTC attorney Daniel Matheson accused Meta of choosing to buy out its competitors instead of engaging in fair competition. “They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” Matheson said during the opening statements.
Meta, however, countered that the FTC’s lawsuit was misguided, especially since the agency had reviewed and approved the acquisitions at the time. Meta attorney Mark Hansen argued that the company’s goal was to improve and grow Instagram and WhatsApp alongside Facebook, creating better consumer experiences. “Acquisitions to improve and grow have never been found unlawful,” Hansen said. “They should not be found unlawful here.”
The stakes in this case are high, as a win for the FTC could result in the breakup of Meta, with the company potentially forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC has claimed that Meta overpaid for Instagram, highlighting that the acquisition was an effort to neutralize Instagram as a rising competitor to Facebook.
The case is heavily dependent on evidence, with Rebecca Haw Allensworth, an antitrust law professor at Vanderbilt Law School, pointing to Mark Zuckerberg’s own words as key evidence. She referred to emails from Zuckerberg that expressed his belief that “it’s better to buy than to compete.” During the trial, Matheson referenced a 2012 memo from Zuckerberg discussing the need to “neutralize” Instagram, which he called “a smoking gun” for the case.
On the other side, Meta emphasized that the acquisitions were aimed at improving services for users and expanding its product offerings. The company also maintains that it faces significant competition from other apps, such as TikTok, X, YouTube, and iMessage, which have posed challenges to its market dominance.
The trial is expected to run for several weeks, with both Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, Meta’s former COO, slated to testify. The case was originally filed during President Donald Trump’s administration, but its political implications have intensified during his second term, particularly with the ongoing debate over political interference in regulatory bodies.
The FTC v Meta case has raised concerns among some political observers, particularly given Meta’s reported lobbying efforts to have the case dropped. The company has also contributed to Trump’s inaugural fund and added Trump allies to its board, including Dina Powell McCormick and Dana White.
In addition to the legal drama, the trial is happening amid heightened political tensions in Washington. President Trump’s move to fire two FTC commissioners in March has further complicated the situation, as Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, both Democrats, have accused the president of trying to intimidate the commission into dropping certain investigations.
The case against Meta is also linked to other significant antitrust investigations, including the Department of Justice's case against Google, which focuses on online search monopolies. Experts like Laura Phillips-Sawyer, an associate professor at the University of Georgia, suggest that the FTC may face an uphill battle in this case. “Compared to online search, there’s more competition in the social media space,” Phillips-Sawyer said. “The FTC has a long road ahead before divestiture is even considered.”
As the trial continues, the fate of Meta and its influential acquisitions hangs in the balance, with potential consequences not only for Zuckerberg’s empire but also for the broader landscape of digital competition and regulation.
Bd-pratidin English/ Jisan
