The fate of Meta Platforms now lies with a federal judge, following today’s conclusion of a high-stakes antitrust trial in Washington D.C. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg is tasked with determining if Meta, formerly Facebook, built an illegal monopoly by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) argued Meta pursued a “buy or bury” strategy to crush competition, while Meta countered it faces a dynamic market and its investments benefited the acquired apps.
This landmark case, Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, could fundamentally alter the social media giant. The FTC seeks to compel Meta to divest both Instagram, acquired for $1 billion in 2012, and WhatsApp, purchased for $19 billion in 2014.
Such an outcome would significantly impact Meta and the wider tech industry. Judge Boasberg, who presided over the six-week trial featuring 38 witnesses including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, will issue his opinion after summer briefings; no formal closing arguments are anticipated.
The FTC’s lawsuit, initiated in December 2020 and refiled after an initial dismissal, alleges Meta violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a key U.S. anti-monopoly law.
A senior F.T.C. official previously highlighted the core legal principle that monopolists cannot acquire their most threatening competitors, adding that “antitrust law requires competition on the merits, even in digital markets, and it’s competition on the merits that drives innovation and ultimately helps consumers.”
Meta, conversely, maintains its innocence, with a spokesperson asserting the trial primarily demonstrated the tech industry’s “dynamic, hypercompetitive nature.”
FTC’s Monopoly Claims Versus Meta’s Defense
The core of the FTC’s argument, presented over several weeks, is that Meta strategically acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to neutralize them as nascent competitive threats, thereby unlawfully maintaining its dominance in “personal social networking services.”
The FTC’s lead counsel, Daniel Matheson, accused Meta of aiming to “erect a moat” around its market position, alleging Mark Zuckerberg operated under a 2008 maxim that “it is better to buy than compete,”
Meta’s defense, concluding on May 21, portrayed a company fostering innovation. Testimonies, including from WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton, suggested the acquisitions provided crucial resources.
Acton, despite a past departure over ad monetization disagreements, stated WhatsApp benefited from Meta’s scale. Meta also argued it faces vigorous competition from platforms like TikTok and YouTube, forcing it to adapt and innovate.
The company contended that proving a current monopoly, especially with new competitors emerging, is a high bar for the FTC. Indeed, Meta’s unsuccessful May 15 motion for a mid-trial judgment, argued the FTC failed to demonstrate Meta was “currently violating the antitrust laws,” or that its market definition wasn’t a “fiction,” countering these allegations.
Market Definition: The Crux Of The Antitrust Battle
A pivotal issue for Judge Boasberg is defining the relevant market. The FTC advocates for a narrow definition focused on apps connecting friends and family, primarily positioning Snap’s Snapchat as Meta’s direct competitor.
Conversely, Meta argues for a broader interpretation, where its platforms like Facebook and Instagram compete for user attention and engagement with a wider array of services, including entertainment-focused TikTok and YouTube. Mark Zuckerberg previously described Facebook’s evolution into a “broad discovery-entertainment space.”
The company’s formal motion for early dismissal further contended the FTC lacked evidence of Meta holding a dominant market share if TikTok or YouTube were included alongside Snapchat.
Broader Implications And A Skeptical Judiciary
The trial’s outcome carries significant weight. An FTC victory could, as Jennifer Huddleston of the Cato Institute suggested to The New York Times, have a “chilling effect on large players trying to acquire new talent or companies,”
However, legal experts, including Sruthi Thatchenkery of Vanderbilt University, noted that “it’s also very hard to unwind a merger,” indicating the difficulty the FTC faces.
Judge Boasberg himself has previously expressed skepticism. In a November 2024 memorandum opinion, he noted that while the case presented no clear victor at that stage, the FTC faced significant hurdles, and that “its positions at times strain this country’s creaking antitrust precedents to their limits.”
Earlier, in a January 2022 opinion allowing an amended FTC complaint to proceed, Judge Boasberg had remarked it was “anyone’s guess” whether the FTC could ultimately prove its case. Should the judge rule in favor of the FTC on the monopoly claim, a second trial phase would determine remedies.
This legal battle occurs amidst Meta’s broader efforts to navigate global regulatory pressures, including changes to its fact-checking programs and lobbying the Trump administration concerning EU digital regulations. The trial, which was expected to last seven to eight weeks from its start on April 14, now moves to its decisive phase with Judge Boasberg.
