Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson outlined the commencement of the agency’s antitrust case against Meta and described the deregulatory agenda initiated during the Trump administration.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, appeared in federal court on Monday to testify at the beginning of a significant antitrust case against the company. This case accuses Zuckerberg and other senior executives of unlawfully acquiring smaller apps, such as Instagram and WhatsApp, to eliminate competition and establish a social media monopoly.
Attorneys representing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) indicated in their opening statements that they intend to prove, over the course of several weeks, that Meta’s purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp were part of a “buy or bury” tactic designed to thwart competition from apps perceived as threats to their platform. FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson asserted that Meta sought to buy out rivals because competition was deemed too challenging.
The FTC argues that for over a decade, this acquisition strategy enabled Meta to pay premiums for competitors, creating “entry barriers” to protect its dominance in the social media sector. Matheson and the FTC are claiming Meta employed this strategy to monopolize the “personal social networking” market. If the FTC prevails, they may seek a court order requiring Meta to restructure or divest from companies it has acquired, including Instagram and WhatsApp.
A successful outcome for the FTC would represent a significant achievement for the federal government, which has faced challenges in court cases involving Silicon Valley and its vast network of start-ups that have rapidly evolved into major corporations. Meta is currently valued at $1.4 trillion, and a victory for the FTC in the antitrust lawsuit could lead to the largest disbanding of a U.S. company since the breakup of AT&T in the early 1980s.
Despite the anticipated lengthy trial expected to extend until early summer, FTC attorneys immediately called their first witness, Mark Zuckerberg, to testify. Zuckerberg faced questions regarding emails he sent about the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014, respectively. In one email, Zuckerberg allegedly stated that Instagram’s rapid growth necessitated its acquisition by Meta. Matheson argued that this email demonstrated Zuckerberg recognized Instagram as a threat and felt compelled to invest a billion dollars because Meta could not compete against it.
Zuckerberg also responded to inquiries about Facebook’s evolution from a platform meant to connect peers to one highlighting more third-party content, including news and group activities. He stated that users are now more connected to various groups and activities, although “friend” connections are still a priority.
Meanwhile, Meta’s attorney, Mark Hansen, criticized the FTC’s case as a disparate mix of theories contrary to legal principles. Hansen expressed confidence that the facts would ultimately disprove the FTC’s claims. Meta’s legal team argued that the FTC’s definition of “personal social networking” apps was incorrect and that the competitive environment includes a broader array of companies, such as TikTok and LinkedIn.
Presiding U.S. Judge James Boasberg carefully monitored the proceedings, occasionally interjecting to seek clarification. The bench trial, expected to last approximately eight weeks, will be solely decided by Judge Boasberg.
The court plans to hear from additional former Meta officials later in the week, including ex-Chief Operations Officer Sheryl Sandberg and former Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth.
