The long-awaited antitrust trial against Meta Platforms Inc. opened with a high-stakes testimony from CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who defended his company’s business practices in a federal court in Washington. At the heart of the lawsuit is the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) accusation that Meta engaged in “anticompetitive conduct” by acquiring potential rivals like Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. The FTC claims these acquisitions gave Meta unfair dominance in the social media space, reducing consumer choice and stifling innovation.
The outcome of this landmark trial could determine whether the federal government can legally compel Meta to divest from its two most lucrative platforms. According to filings, Instagram alone contributes nearly half of Meta’s advertising revenue.
Zuckerberg’s Defense: Competition, Not Domination
During his opening testimony, Zuckerberg sought to frame the acquisitions as strategic and necessary for Meta’s survival in an evolving tech landscape. He told the court that Facebook was struggling to keep up with mobile innovation when Instagram began to take off, and buying the company was a defensive move rather than an aggressive one.
ALSO READ: Call for Cyber Experts: Join FCRF Academy as Trainers and Course Creators
Quoting internal emails from 2011 and 2012, the FTC argued that Facebook leadership feared being left behind. In one email, Zuckerberg wrote, “Instagram seems like it’s growing quickly,” and acknowledged the platform’s potential to dominate the photo-sharing space. Still, he maintained on the stand that the deals were intended to help Meta remain competitive—not monopolistic.
What’s at Stake for Big Tech
If the FTC succeeds in its antitrust suit, Meta may be ordered to sell Instagram and WhatsApp—an outcome that would send shockwaves through Silicon Valley. The case is seen as a bellwether for how regulators plan to rein in tech monopolies in the coming years.
“This case could set a major precedent,” said Daniel Matheson, lead attorney for the FTC. “It’s not about innovation, it’s about consolidation of power after that innovation.”
Meta’s legal team, led by attorney Mark Hansen, countered that the company has never charged users for its services, making it difficult to prove monopolistic harm. “How can this be a monopoly case when users don’t pay a cent?” Hansen asked in court.