Mark Zuckerberg’s personal, last-ditch effort to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust lawsuit against Meta Platforms dissolved weeks before the case headed to court, after his offers were starkly insufficient compared to the agency’s demands. In late March 2025, the Meta CEO directly contacted FTC leadership proposing a $450 million payment to resolve the government’s challenge to Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Sources cited in subsequent reports indicated Meta later increased the offer to nearly $1 billion. Both figures fell dramatically short of the FTC’s reported $30 billion demand and a reported internal agency view that any offer below $18 billion without a formal consent decree was not credible. The initial $450 million offer was reportedly described by former FTC Chair Lina Khan as “delusional.” This impasse directly led to the landmark trial, which commenced in Washington D.C. on April 14, 2025.
Core Arguments Clash as Trial Unfolds
Zuckerberg took the stand as the first witness when the trial began, facing immediate scrutiny over Meta’s competitive practices. The FTC, represented by lead lawyer Daniel Matheson, argues that Meta illegally built and maintained a monopoly in “personal social networking” by acquiring potential rivals Instagram (bought for $1 billion in 2012) and WhatsApp (bought for $19 billion in 2014).
Matheson stated Meta sought to `‘erect a moat’` around its dominance, citing internal documents and alleging Zuckerberg operated under the maxim, `‘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.` To bolster this, the FTC presented internal communications, including a 2012 email discussing the Instagram purchase as a way to “neutralize a competitor” and 2013 projections showing internal concern about WhatsApp’s growth threatening Facebook’s core engagement. The agency is ultimately seeking to force Meta, now valued at $1.4 trillion, to divest both Instagram and WhatsApp.
Meta’s defense, spearheaded by attorney Marc Hansen, paints a picture of a dynamic market where Meta faces robust competition. Zuckerberg testified that Facebook has evolved substantially, shifting towards being `”more of a broad discovery-entertainment space,”` rather than purely focused on connecting existing friends. He stated, `”Over time… 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.”`
Hansen argued that “anyway you look at it, consumers have been the big winners” from Meta’s development of the acquired apps, questioning how the agency could maintain a monopolization case against a company whose core services remain free to users.
A Meta blog post further argued, `”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,”` 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.”`
Political Backdrop and Judicial History
The failed settlement talks occurred amid significant political maneuvering. Zuckerberg had made multiple White House visits and a $1 million donation to former President Trump’s inauguration fund, alongside settling a Trump lawsuit over his account suspension for a reported $25 million – actions perceived as attempts to gain favor, with the initial WSJ report noting Zuckerberg hoped Trump might offer backing against the FTC suit.
This context makes the subsequent report that FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson met with Trump on April 8th and received his blessing to proceed with the trial even more notable. Ferguson himself had previously acknowledged he would be bound to `”obey lawful orders”` from the President, while noting the agency’s formal independence. These lobbying attempts also followed a February 2025 White House memorandum from President Trump describing certain EU regulatory fines against US tech firms as “overseas extortion.”
The case itself has a history predating the current administration, having been initially filed in December 2020. Judge James Boasberg, who is presiding over the bench trial, initially dismissed the FTC’s complaint in June 2021 as “legally insufficient,” though he allowed the agency to refile an amended version, which was permitted to proceed in January 2022. His noted skepticism toward some of the FTC’s market definition arguments could be a factor as the trial progresses. Interestingly, internal Meta documents cited in court suggest the company considered selling Instagram back in 2018 due to early competition authority pressure, indicating long-standing awareness of the regulatory risks.
High Stakes and Broader Implications
The trial is anticipated to last several weeks, potentially extending into the summer, with potential testimony from figures like former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg and the co-founders of Instagram and WhatsApp. Meta’s legal team emphasizes that the FTC must prove current monopoly power, not rely solely on conditions from a decade ago when the acquisitions occurred. The practicalities of unwinding these deeply integrated platforms after so many years present considerable complexity, an aspect Meta’s defense will likely explore.
This case represents a major front in the wider global scrutiny of large technology firms’ market influence. Google, for instance, is simultaneously facing two major antitrust lawsuits, and regulators are also applying pressure to companies like Amazon and Apple. The outcome of the Meta trial could have far-reaching effects on how tech acquisitions are viewed and regulated worldwide.
