Meta has moved on May 15 to halt the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) significant antitrust trial, asking a federal judge to rule in its favor. The company argues the agency failed to prove Meta monopolized social networking through its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions. This bid for judgment, if granted, could abruptly end a case threatening to break up the tech giant, marking a critical juncture in the high-profile legal battle.
In its formal motion, Meta asserted that the FTC, after five weeks of presenting its case, failed to prove Meta is “currently violating the antitrust laws,” a point directly citing a prior court filing (ECF No. 503). The company contends the FTC’s definition of a “personal social networking services” market is a “fiction,” ignoring robust competition from TikTok, YouTube, and iMessage. Meta’s legal team emphasized that its main apps are free and that overall market output has surged, indicative of a competitive environment.
The request for judgment on partial findings was filed with DC District Court Judge James Boasberg, who previously, in a November 2024 ruling, allowed the FTC’s case to proceed to trial. The current trial began the week of April 14, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg as the initial witness. An FTC spokesperson did not immediately comment on Meta’s motion.
Meta Contests Monopoly Allegations
Meta’s filing systematically attacks the FTC’s core assertions. The company claims there’s no direct evidence it wields monopoly power, such as by degrading service quality or imposing excessive ad loads beyond any established competitive benchmark. Specifically, Meta argues the FTC failed to prove its ad load exceeded “a competitive level” and that its profits, primarily from advertising, are earned in a separate market and thus irrelevant to the PSNS market definition, points detailed in its court submission.
Meta further argues that the FTC’s indirect evidence, particularly its narrow market definition focusing on “friends-and-family sharing,” is flawed. Meta’s motion states this type of sharing is a diminishing activity on its platforms, increasingly shifting to private messaging. Meta’s motion stated: “The FTC has no evidence that Meta has a 60 percent share of any market that includes TikTok or YouTube along with Snapchat.”
The company insists it has been forced to emulate features from platforms like TikTok to stay competitive, challenging the FTC’s attempt to distinguish these services. Reuters also noted that Meta’s filing argued WhatsApp never intended to become a direct social network competitor to Facebook.
Acquisition Defenses and Trial Context
Regarding the controversial acquisitions, Meta’s stance is that they were pro-competitive and beneficial to users. The company claims it transformed Instagram from an app with uncertain prospects and fewer than four million daily U.S. users into a global platform with over 230 million in the U.S. alone. The motion referenced Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom’s trial testimony, suggesting Instagram’s independent success was not guaranteed and that it “grew much more quickly” as part of Facebook.
The FTC’s case, initiated in 2020, alleges these purchases were strategic moves to neutralize rising competitors. At the trial’s start, the FTC’s lead counsel, Daniel Matheson, accused Meta of aiming to “erect a moat” around its dominance, arguing that true to an alleged 2008 maxim from Zuckerberg that “It is better to buy than compete,” Facebook had systematically tracked and acquired potential rivals.
The agency seeks the divestiture of both Instagram and WhatsApp. Meta’s attorney, Marc Hansen, countered early in the trial that consumers have been “the big winners” and questioned how the FTC could claim monopolization when Meta’s services are free to users, a point also made in a Meta blog post. The battle over market definition is a common feature in such tech antitrust cases, like in the Microsoft antitrust case of the 1990s.
Political Dimensions and Next Steps
The trial has not been without external pressures, and there has been intense pre-trial lobbying by Zuckerberg towards the Trump administration. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has stated that he would “obey lawful orders” from the President, even hypothetically to drop the suit. Judge Boasberg, who is presiding over the current bench trial is known for a history of skepticism towards the FTC’s arguments.
If Judge Boasberg denies Meta’s current motion, the trial will continue with Meta presenting its defense. A subsequent ruling against Meta on the monopoly claim would then trigger a second trial phase to determine remedies.
