Opening arguments commence today, April 14, 2025, in Washington D.C. federal court for the Federal Trade Commission’s landmark antitrust trial against Meta Platforms Inc., a high-stakes confrontation that could reshape the social media giant.
Presiding Judge James Boasberg is set to hear the FTC’s case over several weeks, focusing on allegations that Meta illegally acquired nascent rivals Instagram and WhatsApp to maintain a monopoly, potentially seeking their divestiture. The government plans to present evidence like a 2012 internal email where CEO Mark Zuckerberg allegedly stated the Instagram purchase was intended to “neutralize a potential competitor.”
Meta counters that the FTC’s market definition is flawed, its acquisitions benefited users through investment, and points to robust competition from platforms like TikTok and YouTube. Meta spokesperson Christopher Sgro characterized the lawsuit as one that “defies reality,” adding, “The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows…”
Against this backdrop of immediate legal jeopardy, Meta announced the appointment of Dina Powell McCormick, a former high-ranking advisor in the Trump administration, to its board of directors, effective April 15.
McCormick, who served as President Donald Trump’s deputy national security adviser in 2017 and held positions under President George W. Bush, brings extensive finance experience from leadership roles at Goldman Sachs and her current position as vice chair, president, and head of global client services at BDT & MSD Partners.
Her addition, alongside Stripe CEO Patrick Collison (who was previously part of the Meta Advisory Group), expands Meta’s board to 15 members. Observers widely view McCormick’s appointment as a calculated step to further strengthen Meta’s ties with the Trump administration as regulatory pressures mount.
“I’m excited to bring my experience in finance, government and economic development to support the people and entrepreneurs who use Meta’s services,” McCormick stated in the official announcement. Collison added, “Between WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook, Meta is one of the internet’s most important platforms for businesses. I look forward to helping them navigate the abundant opportunities of the coming years.”
A Pattern of Political Recalibration
This board adjustment isn’t occurring in isolation but appears part of a broader pattern suggesting a political recalibration. In early January 2025, Meta revealed it was dismantling its US-based third-party fact-checking program for Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.
It shifted towards a user-led “Community Notes” system – where contributors meeting certain criteria can add context to posts – similar to that used by X (formerly Twitter). Meta’s global policy chief Joel Kaplan justified the change by stating previous moderation efforts had “made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement.”
This announcement came shortly after Zuckerberg reportedly dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago post-election and coincided with the appointment of UFC CEO Dana White, described as an outspoken Trump advocate, to the board (alongside former Microsoft executive Charlie Songhurst and Exor CEO John Elkann).
President Trump publicly lauded Meta’s changes, remarking, “I watched their news conference, and I thought it was a very good news conference… I think they’ve, honestly, I think they’ve come a long way. Meta. Facebook.” This marked a notable thaw from previous years when relations were strained following Meta’s suspension of Trump’s accounts after the January 6th Capitol riot.
Meanwhile, fact-checking organizations like Lead Stories reported being “blindsided” by the decision. Around the same period, Meta also integrated its specific Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) teams into broader HR functions and announced the relocation of some trust and safety operations from California to Texas, partly framed by Zuckerberg as addressing concerns about employee bias.
Lobbying Efforts and Extending Reach
Meta’s outreach to the administration appears direct and aimed at alleviating regulatory pressure beyond the FTC trial. Zuckerberg has reportedly undertaken multiple White House visits attempting to persuade officials to intervene in the antitrust case. The company has also actively lobbied the US Trade Representative and administration officials to challenge European Union digital regulations, particularly the Digital Markets Act (DMA) rules impacting its “pay or consent” advertising model.
Meta seeks to frame these rules as unfair trade barriers, adopting language similar to President Trump’s February 2025 memorandum describing EU fines as “overseas extortion.” This political engagement coincides with reports of Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan purchasing a $23 million estate in Washington D.C., potentially signaling an increased focus on the capital.
The EU regulatory front includes not only the “pay or consent” challenge, which could carry heavy fines (though perhaps less than initially anticipated), but also past penalties like a €1.2 billion GDPR fine in May 2023 and a €797 million fine related to Facebook Marketplace in November 2024.
Furthermore, Meta faces EU scrutiny over messaging interoperability required under DMA Article 7, with its API-based approach drawing criticism from groups like the XMPP Standards Foundation, which advocates for open protocols like the one powering email for easier cross-service communication. Despite Meta’s lobbying, some analysis suggests the administration might be allowing the FTC trial to proceed strategically, perhaps to maintain leverage over the company.
Policy Shifts and Internal Dynamics
These external maneuvers accompany internal policy shifts. Meta relaxed content rules concerning sensitive political subjects like immigration and gender identity, with leaked training materials indicating that discussions framing LGBTQ+ identities as a “mental illness” were now permissible as “political and religious discourse,” a change that reportedly caused internal dissent and drew criticism from groups like GLAAD.
Even the company’s technology development seems touched by this recalibration. Announcing its Llama 4 AI models on April 6, Meta explicitly stated an objective was addressing political bias, noting in its official blog post that “It’s well-known that all leading LLMs have had issues with bias—specifically, they historically have leaned left when it comes to debated political and social topics” due to internet training data. The company aims for Llama 4 to present “both sides” of debated topics, a move some interpreted as creating a “less woke” or more centrist AI.
Navigating Global Rules and Data Questions
While Meta pursues these adjustments, their global application faces hurdles. The rollback of third-party fact-checking remains confined to a US trial. Stricter regulations abroad, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) governing personal data and the Digital Services Act (DSA) regulating online platforms, impose different requirements.
This was evident when Meta AI chatbots launched in Europe in March 2025 lacking features like image generation available in the US due to GDPR constraints. Underlying Meta’s AI development are ongoing legal questions about its training data. Lawsuits allege the company used vast datasets of copyrighted books acquired from “shadow libraries” like LibGen via the BitTorrent protocol – a peer-to-peer file-sharing system. Court documents include internal communications reflecting employee unease, with one staffer reportedly writing, “Torrenting from a [Meta-owned] corporate laptop doesn’t feel right.”
Further reports suggest Meta may have re-uploaded significant amounts of this data, potentially complicating its “fair use” defense – a legal doctrine permitting limited use of copyrighted material – for AI training.
