• The FTC is attempting to break up Meta, requiring it to sell Instagram and WhatsApp, in what could be the largest corporate breakup since AT&T in the 1980s. The trial begins April 14, 2025, in D.C. federal court.
• The FTC claims Meta illegally suppressed competition by acquiring Instagram ($1B in 2012) and WhatsApp ($19B in 2014), citing internal emails where Mark Zuckerberg saw Instagram as a future threat and aimed to “neutralize” it.
• Meta argues that its acquisitions enhanced user experience and that rivals like TikTok and YouTube prove competition exists. Zuckerberg testified that Instagram would not have succeeded alone and that Meta’s investments fueled its growth.
• A breakup could reshape antitrust enforcement, potentially forcing other tech giants to unwind past mergers. The case also highlights bipartisan scrutiny of Big Tech under both Trump and Biden administrations.
• If the FTC wins, Meta’s 3.5B+ users could face disruptions in services and advertising. The outcome may also influence future tech mergers and redefine digital antitrust laws, regardless of who prevails.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has embarked on a historic legal bid to dismantle Meta Platforms Inc., the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, in a trial that could mark the largest corporate breakup in decades. Opening April 14, 2025, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the FTC alleges Meta unlawfully quashed competition by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp through a “buy-or-bury strategy.” A ruling in the FTC’s favor would force Meta to spin off its major platforms—a first for the agency since it dissolved AT&T in the 1980s—while sparking broader scrutiny over Big Tech monopolies.

The case against Meta – market dominance and acquisitions

The FTC’s central claim is that Meta stifled competition by purchasing potential rivals Instagram

(1 billion in 2012) and WhatsApp (19 billion in 2014) at inflated prices. Internal emails exposed in court reveal Meta’s early anxieties about Instagram’s rising influence. In 2011, CEO Mark Zuckerberg described the photo-sharing app as “growing quickly,” urging Meta to consider buying it out to prevent it from becoming a “much bigger threat.” A 2012 email stating Meta aimed to “neutralize” Instagram has been cited as a “smoking gun” by FTC attorney Daniel Matheson.

The FTC argues Meta’s acquisitions were defensive attempts to preserve its online dominance, which the government now views as anticompetitive. “They decided that competition is too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” Matheson said in opening statements.

Meta’s former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg added to the evidence this week, testifying about a 2011 strategy to block Google’s social network, Google+, from advertising on Facebook’s platform. Sandberg told the court the move was “to keep Google from poaching our audience,” but Meta attorneys framed such tactics as routine and lawful.

Meta’s defense and testimony: A fight for survival

Meta has fought fiercely, contending its acquisitions strengthened user experience and that competitors like TikTok, YouTube and China’s iMessage pose genuine threats. Zuckerberg, who spent three days on the stand, insisted the company faced intense “relatively early” competition that drove its strategy.

He admitted purchasing Instagram “because it had better camera features” than Meta’s own underdevelopment efforts, but argued Meta’s resources fueled Instagram’s growth. “Would it have succeeded on its own?” he asked. “I think extremely not.” Zuckerberg also dismissed claims the FTC could define Meta’s market narrowly, noting apps like TikTok now dominate younger audiences.

Meta’s defense team emphasized the sheer number of competitors. “Acquisitions to improve and grow an acquired firm are not unlawful,” said attorney Mark Hansen, stating Meta’s services are free and outpace rivals. Senior executives like Javier Olivan, now chief operating officer, and Sandberg further justified blocking competitor ads as logical defense against monopolization claims.

Zuckerberg’s political maneuvering has underpinned Meta’s strategy amid heightened scrutiny. Since President Donald Trump’s return to office, the company has eased content moderation policies, contributed to Trump’s inauguration fund and settled a $25 million lawsuit over Trump’s post-January 6 social media suspension. While he homeschooled in Washington, Zuckerberg’s overtures to the White House appear unlikely to sway the FTC, which is staffed with antitrust advocates both under Biden and Trump.

Broader implications

A breakup would echo the FTC’s 1984 AT&T ruling, sending shockwaves through Big Tech. The trial underscores a broader bipartisan crackdown starting under Trump’s first term, with parallel cases targeting Amazon, Apple and Google. The FTC’s victory here could force rivals to unwind similar mergers while empowering regulators to reframe antitrust law for the digital age.

Judge James Boasberg, who will decide the case, faces a complex task assessing how to define Meta’s market. The FTC argues Facebook and Instagram operate in a unique “friends and family” category—not threatened by TikTok’s short-form video or YouTube’s content-driven model—while Meta insists its platforms compete daily for users’ attention across multimedia platforms.

With appeals expected, the case may drag years. For Meta’s 3.5 billion users, however, chaos looms if the FTC wins. Splitting the company could fracture user bases and disrupt advertising ecosystems, imperiling the $1.4 trillion ad business that funds billions of dollars in metaverse research.

A pivotal moment for digital monopolies

As Zuckerberg, Sandberg and generations of executives face scrutiny, the FTC v. Meta trial represents more than a legal showdown—it is a referendum on Big Tech’s unchecked power. A ruling for the government would send a stark message: dominant platforms cannot flout antitrust laws with impunity. But even if Meta prevails, the case establishes a template for future Big Tech litigation, reshaping an industry where acquisition often trumps innovation.

For now, markets and policymakers watch anxiously, bracing for a verdict that may redefine 21st-century capitalism—or prolong its highly concentrated status quo.

Sources include:

RT.com

Aljazeera.com

NYTimes.com