An intense legal battle commenced this week in Washington D.C. as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched its landmark antitrust trial against Meta, a company with a $1.4 trillion market capitalization.
At the heart of the case: whether Meta illegally cemented a monopoly in social networking through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Taking the stand as the trial’s first witness on Monday, April 14, 2025, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg immediately faced a barrage of questions from FTC lawyers, setting the stage for a legal fight that could fundamentally reshape the social media landscape.
Political Currents Swirl Around Antitrust Showdown
The courtroom drama is unfolding against a backdrop of significant political tension. Just weeks before the trial commenced, Mark Zuckerberg engaged in pre-trial lobbying efforts aimed at the Trump White House, seeking intervention to halt the FTC lawsuit. These efforts framed the antitrust action, alongside EU regulatory pressures, as economically damaging and unfairly targeting American tech leadership.
The lobbying push occurred as President Trump had already issued a memorandum characterizing certain EU regulatory fines against U.S. tech firms as “overseas extortion.” FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, while affirming the agency’s formal independence, conceded he would be bound to “obey lawful orders” from the President, even hypothetically to drop the Meta suit.
Adding another layer of complexity, Judge James Boasberg, presiding over this bench trial, has a history of skepticism towards the FTC’s arguments and is currently embroiled in a legal clash with the Trump administration over its efforts to deport Venezuelan immigrants.
Boasberg has previously criticized the FTC’s approach to defining Meta’s market share and questioned whether their claims stretch antitrust law to its breaking point.
FTC Focuses on “Core Value Proposition”
Daniel Matheson, spearheading the FTC’s legal team, wasted no time in zeroing in on what he termed Meta’s “core value proposition.” He pressed Zuckerberg to concede that Meta’s platforms are fundamentally designed to connect users with their real-world social circles.
This tactic underscores the agency’s definition of the “personal social networking” market, which it contends Meta dominates unlawfully, a market they define as encompassing just a handful of platforms: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat, and MeWe. Matheson asserted in his opening statement that Meta moved to “erect a moat” around its dominance by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, fearing their potential to disrupt its market position. He further emphasized, that while Meta generated “enormous profits,” consumer satisfaction has demonstrably declined.
Zuckerberg Defends Evolving Platform
Zuckerberg, however, skillfully parried this line of attack. While acknowledging the importance of friend connections, he countered that Facebook’s trajectory has shifted. “Over time,” Zuckerberg testified, “the ‘interest’ part of that has gotten built out more than the ‘friend’ part… The ‘friend’ part has gone down quite a bit—but it’s still something we care about.”
He argued that Facebook’s current iteration leans “more of a broad discovery-entertainment space,” suggesting a competitive arena far wider than the FTC’s narrow definition. This shift towards groups, he implied, further diversifies user engagement beyond purely personal connections, challenging the FTC’s narrow ‘personal social networking’ market definition.
Acquisitions at the Heart of the Dispute
A cornerstone of the FTC’s case rests on internal Meta communications, particularly emails surrounding the Instagram and WhatsApp deals. In his opening statement, Matheson quoted an alleged 2008 maxim from Zuckerberg: “‘It is better to buy than compete.’ True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats.”
The agency contends these acquisitions weren’t simply savvy business moves but calculated strikes to neutralize emerging threats and stifle market dynamism. The FTC’s aim is nothing short of radical: to unwind these acquisitions, forcing Meta to divest Instagram, purchased in 2012 for $1 billion, and WhatsApp, acquired in 2014 for a staggering $19 billion.
Zuckerberg explained that the Instagram acquisition, coincided with Facebook’s preparations to go public, a period anticipating a surge of capital that made a “buy vs build” strategy viable. He stated Instagram went “to the core of what we’re doing today.”
Meta Argues Consumer Benefit and Competitive Market
Conversely, Meta’s defense, spearheaded by attorney Marc Hansen, paints a picture of a dynamic, intensely competitive tech world, far removed from any monopoly. Hansen dismissed the FTC’s arguments as a “grab bag,” underscoring, that “anyway you look at it, consumers have been the big winners” from Meta’s acquisitions.
He challenged the very premise of the FTC’s case, pointedly asking, “How can the FTC maintain this monopolization case when [Meta] has never charged users a cent?” Meta spokesperson, echoed this sentiment, stating in a blog post, “The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others.”
The company further introduced a geopolitical element, adding, “Regulators should be supporting American innovation, rather than seeking to break up a great American company and further advantaging China on critical issues like AI.”
Trial Expected to Extend into Summer
As Zuckerberg completed his initial testimony, the trial is anticipated to continue for several weeks, potentially stretching into the summer months. A roster of high-profile witnesses may be called, including former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom, and WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton, alongside executives from rival platforms like Snap.
In recent court filings, Meta’s legal team has emphasized, that the FTC must demonstrate current monopoly power, not simply speculate about past market conditions, arguing the competitive landscape has shifted dramatically since the acquisitions a decade ago.
The landmark trial against Meta is unfolding amid a broader global antitrust scrutiny of Big Tech. Google currently faces two significant antitrust lawsuits, while companies like Amazon and Apple are also under increasing regulatory pressure. Whether the FTC can convince Judge Boasberg that Meta’s acquisitions warrant a historic breakup remains to be seen, but the opening salvos of this landmark trial signal a protracted and closely watched legal fight with potentially far-reaching consequences for the tech industry and regulatory oversight worldwide.
