From Ryan Abramson: Meta vs. The Federal Trade Commission: The Case Every Social Expert Should Be Following

Langhorne, PA. - Ryan Abramson April 14, 2025

Communications consultant Ryan Abramson review the case against Meta. On April 14, 2025, Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, began one of the most consequential antitrust trials of the decade. In what could become a landmark ruling in modern tech regulation, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has accused Meta of illegal monopolistic practices, specifically targeting the company’s historic acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. The case, being heard in Washington, D.C., could result in a court-ordered breakup of Meta, fundamentally changing the landscape of social media.

— Ryan Abramson, Communications Expert and Principal at Oakridge Leaders

Background of the Case

The FTC originally filed its lawsuit against Meta—then Facebook—in December 2020, following years of mounting criticism over the company’s dominance in the social media sector. Alongside 46 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the FTC alleged that Meta’s acquisitions were part of a calculated strategy to eliminate emerging rivals and consolidate its power in the personal social networking market.

The first version of the lawsuit was dismissed in 2021 due to insufficient evidence. However, the FTC refiled a stronger complaint in August 2021. The presiding judge, James E. Boasberg, allowed the revised case to proceed in January 2022. With more detailed evidence in hand—much of it drawn from internal company communications and financial analyses—the FTC pushed forward, culminating in the start of the full trial in April 2025.

The case is expected to last through mid-summer, with a decision that could alter the course of the tech industry for decades to come.

Core Allegations

“Buy or Bury” Strategy

At the heart of the FTC’s complaint is the accusation that Meta pursued a “buy or bury” strategy—acquiring or stifling potential competitors before they could pose a significant threat. The FTC claims this strategy was not only anticompetitive but also designed to insulate Facebook’s core business from meaningful competition.

One of the most cited pieces of evidence in the case is an internal email sent by Mark Zuckerberg in 2012, in which he stated that acquiring Instagram would neutralize a competitor and allow Facebook to dominate photo-sharing. Instagram, at the time, was a fast-growing startup with increasing user engagement and technological innovation. By acquiring it, the FTC argues, Meta eliminated a serious challenge to its dominance.

Similarly, WhatsApp, which had emerged as a leading global messaging app, was purchased in 2014 for $19 billion. The FTC claims the acquisition was not only about expanding services but about cementing Meta’s control over private communication and engagement platforms.

Harm to Consumers and Innovation

FTC attorney Daniel Matheson argued in opening statements that Meta’s conduct has harmed consumers in three primary ways:

1. Reduced Innovation – By removing competitors from the marketplace, the pace of innovation in the social media and messaging space has slowed.

2. Diminished Privacy Protections – Without competition, there has been less incentive to prioritize user privacy, according to the FTC.

3. Increased Advertising Load – With less competition, consumers have fewer alternatives and are subjected to more aggressive advertising strategies.

The FTC contends that breaking up Meta’s ecosystem is necessary to restore competition and innovation.

Meta’s Defense

Meta’s legal team strongly opposes the FTC’s claims, asserting that both the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions were reviewed and approved by federal regulators at the time. They emphasize that the FTC’s current case is attempting to rewrite history and penalize the company for actions that were legal and approved more than a decade ago.

Meta’s chief legal officer, Jennifer Newstead, has argued that the FTC is ignoring how the digital marketplace actually works. “The FTC’s case ignores how the market actually works and chases a theory that doesn’t hold up in the real world,” she said in an official statement.

Meta also disputes the FTC’s definition of the relevant market. The government defines the relevant product market narrowly—as “personal social networking services.” Meta argues that this excludes substantial competitors like TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and Apple’s iMessage, all of which have strong engagement and billions of users.

Mark Hansen, lead attorney for Meta, posed a fundamental question to the court: “How can the FTC maintain this monopolization case when Meta has never charged users a cent?” He argued that consumers have consistently benefitted from free access to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and that the company has continuously improved its products to better serve them.

Key Quotes from the Trial

• Daniel Matheson, FTC Attorney: “They decided that competition was too hard, and it would be easier to buy out their rivals rather than compete with them.”

• Mark Hansen, Meta Attorney: “How can the FTC maintain this monopolization case when [Meta] has never charged users a cent?”

• Jennifer Newstead, Meta Chief Legal Officer: “The FTC’s case ignores how the market actually works and chases a theory that doesn’t hold up in the real world.”

These quotes encapsulate the fundamental philosophical and legal divide at the heart of the trial: is dominance via acquisition illegal if it was previously approved, and if the services are offered for free?

Expected Timeline

The trial began on April 14, 2025, and is expected to run for approximately eight weeks. During that time, dozens of witnesses are scheduled to testify, including current and former Meta executives, economists, and technology experts. Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify in mid-May.

A verdict is likely by July 2025. However, if the FTC wins, a second phase of the trial will begin to determine appropriate remedies. This could extend proceedings into 2026.

Potential Outcomes

1. Full FTC Victory

The most aggressive outcome would see the court rule entirely in favor of the FTC. This would mean:

• A forced breakup of Meta.

• Instagram and WhatsApp spun off as independent companies.

• Regulatory oversight of future Meta acquisitions.

This outcome would be unprecedented and would signal a dramatic shift in how regulators treat tech consolidation.

2. Meta Prevails

If Meta wins the case, it would keep control of Instagram and WhatsApp, and the FTC would suffer a significant setback. Such a ruling would limit future regulatory action on prior acquisitions and reinforce the notion that previous approvals are binding.

It would also be interpreted as a judicial endorsement of large tech firms’ strategies and a warning to regulators that they must act more swiftly in future cases.

3. Settlement or Compromise

Although no settlement has been publicly discussed, a compromise could still occur. This might include:

• Greater transparency requirements.

• Behavioral remedies limiting how Meta can use data across platforms.

• Oversight of future mergers.

However, given the high-profile nature of the case, many analysts believe that both sides are committed to seeing it through in court.

Broader Implications for Meta and Beyond

The trial is widely seen as a bellwether for how U.S. antitrust law will adapt to the digital age. It comes at a time when both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed bipartisan interest in reining in Big Tech.

In Europe and other jurisdictions, Meta and similar companies have faced stricter regulations and substantial fines. A win for the FTC could encourage other governments to take similar actions.

Additionally, the case is being closely watched by investors and startup founders. If acquisitions are more heavily scrutinized in the future, that could impact exit strategies, valuations, and innovation cycles in Silicon Valley and beyond.

Public and Industry Reaction

Consumer advocacy groups have largely supported the FTC’s efforts, saying that Meta’s dominance has stifled competition and harmed user privacy.

Industry leaders are more divided. Some argue that the acquisitions made Instagram and WhatsApp better platforms through Meta’s financial and engineering resources. Others believe that allowing giants like Meta to acquire every promising competitor discourages startups from even trying to challenge them.

Investors are also closely monitoring the trial. Shares in Meta have remained volatile, with potential impacts on advertising revenue, product development, and long-term strategic planning.

In the End

As Meta faces off against the FTC in a historic antitrust trial, the world is watching to see how regulators, judges, and lawmakers will respond to the growing influence of Big Tech. The case touches on critical questions of fairness, innovation, consumer rights, and the future of competition in digital markets.

Whether Meta is ordered to break apart or allowed to maintain its empire, the ruling will shape the next decade of tech development, legal precedent, and public policy.

Cited

1. The Guardian. “Meta trial begins over Instagram and WhatsApp monopoly allegations.” April 14, 2025.

2. Politico. “Zuckerberg testifies as FTC, Meta trade opening salvos in antitrust trial.” April 14, 2025.

3. NPR. “FTC opens antitrust trial against Meta over Instagram and WhatsApp.” April 14, 2025.

4. CBS News. “FTC antitrust trial against Meta begins in Washington.” April 14, 2025.

5. Wired. “FTC’s antitrust case against Meta goes to trial.” April 14, 2025.

6. About Meta. “Meta’s official response to FTC case.” April 2025.

7. Wikipedia. “Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc.” Accessed April 14, 2025.

8. New York Post. “FTC trial against Meta begins: Zuckerberg and Sandberg under scrutiny.” April 14, 2025.