Skip to main content

The long-awaited antitrust trial between Meta and the Federal Trade Commission kicked off on April 14th. Over about two months, DC District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg is hearing arguments about whether then-Facebook illegally monopolized the market for “personal social networking services” through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

The FTC first brought the case in late 2020. While it was initially thrown out by the judge, he let an amended version move forward after the government beefed up details about why it thinks Meta is a monopoly. This phase of the trial will help the judge determine if Meta is liable for breaking antitrust law. If he finds that to be true, he’ll later rule on how those harms should be remedied. The FTC is pushing for Instagram and WhatsApp should be spun off.

This is the third US trial seeking to break up Big Tech in recent years, following the Justice Department’s two separate cases against Google over its search and ad tech businesses.

Read below for all of our updates on the FTC v. Meta case.

  • People are getting more personal on LinkedIn.

    “The line between professional and personal is increasingly blurred,” says a LinkedIn document shown in a video deposition. Then-LinkedIn product executive Kumaresh Pattabiraman explains in the video that in the wake of the pandemic, “we observe that people are bringing their personal and their professional lives a lot closer together,” with people posting about everything from completing a marathon to their views on politics on LinkedIn. This seems to undermine the FTC’s claim that LinkedIn does not compete with Facebook and Instagram for personal social networking. He says friends and family have always been part of the LinkedIn experience, but even more so now.

  • Facebook’s WhatsApp acquisition was ‘very unusual.’

    In a video deposition Judge Boasberg watched a few weeks ago and the media is now being shown, former Morgan Stanley investment banker Ali Esfahani describes the whirlwind few days in which the $19 billion deal came together. The deal followed none of the usual steps Morgan Stanley would typically take contacting buyers and negotiating price on the company’s behalf, he says. Instead, after being called on a Saturday night, he showed up to a meeting to hammer out the deal, but “when we arrived, we realized the price had already been negotiated, the buyer had already been selected.” Esfahani says he felt like he was basically “being thrown a bone because of all the preemptive work that we had done.”

    “They didn’t really require an advisor because there was no negotiation involved,” he testifies. “I don’t know of any other deal that has been done from soup to nuts in four days.”

  • The trial concludes.

    After six weeks, the FTC’s anti-monopoly trial against Meta is finally over. The parties will need to file post-trial briefs, including Meta’s argument to strike FTC expert Hemphill’s testimony, and then it will be up to Judge Boasberg to write his opinion. Boasberg says he plans to “take a welcome respite from thinking about this” until the first brief is due. He thanks everyone for their “hard work over the last four and a half years” — a stark reminder of how long this case has been in the works — and adds that the “issues are certainly interesting, and I’ll await final submissions and get you my decision as expeditiously as I can.”

    The media is now getting the chance to watch video depositions that the judge watched in chambers a few weeks ago, so we’ll update with any additional insights from those.

  • Meta wants to get the FTC’s expert testimony thrown out.

    The company plans to move to strike Hemphill’s testimony, saying he prejudged Meta’s antitrust liability even before he was retained as an expert witness by the FTC. Huff pulls up a more full version of the 2019 presentation that Hemphill and former Biden official Tim Wu gave to the agency urging an investigation into Meta’s potential monopoly power, just a week before it opened its probe. Huff suggests that the agency ultimately took Hemphill’s litigation strategy advice, though the expert disagrees that’s what he offered. Huff shows a slide suggesting the FTC interview many of the witnesses that appeared in this case, including the founders of Instagram and WhatsApp. Hemphill says “it’s hardly brain surgery to talk to all the founders.” Huff also pulls up a post Hemphill and Wu wrote after the FTC filed its case, calling Meta a monopolist.

    “Maybe it’s fitting that you end the case because you helped get it started in the first place,” says Huff.

  • People who like ads may spend less time on Facebook when they click on them.

    When lower engagement correlates with users being served more ads, Meta suggests that might actually mean that users like the ads so much that they’re clicking them and spending their time on the advertiser’s site — not that they dislike ads so much that they leave. Hemphill concedes that he didn’t parse out how much of the decreased engagement was due to people liking or disliking ads, but says the distinction doesn’t seem important.

  • Platform outages have led to product changes at Meta.

    On cross examination, Meta attorney Kevin Huff pushes back on Hemphill’s argument that temporary changes in user behavior around an outage should not get much weight, in part because businesses don’t make decisions based on such a blip. He shows an excerpt of Instagram chief Adam Mosseri’s testimony, where he said Meta observed an increase in time spent on its platforms during a 2013 YouTube outage, and as a result invested in building out video products like Facebook Live, at one point investing a billion dollars a year on content.

  • Zuckerberg’s ‘really smart’ call.

    The FTC has argued that Meta paid a premium for WhatsApp beyond its market value, which it was willing to do squelch a potential competitor. But Boasberg asks Hemphill to reconcile how that could be the case for Instagram as well, whose $1 billion price tag now looks quite low given its explosive growth and money-making ability. Hemphill says the price needs to be analyzed within the context of 2012. But the judge still wonders, “why can’t you think about it that Mark Zuckerberg is really smart,” and saw value where others didn’t?

  • Judge wonders if he should bother worrying about ‘amorphous’ quality measures.

    Hemphill argues that Meta has reduced overall market output for consumers with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, because consumers believe it’s reduced the quality of the services even if they’ve added users. But “users is a real concrete metric,” where quality is harder to quantify, Boasberg says, “so why shouldn’t we be focused on that?” Hemphill concedes it’s harder to measure, but says quality is an important aspect of the overall health of the market.

  • Meta’s pivot to Reels doesn’t undermine the argument for its monopoly power.

    Meta has argued that sharing content with friends and family has become a much smaller portion of its business, as it competes aggressively with TikTok through its Reels video product, and that’s what the judge should focus on. But Hemphill says the fact that Meta has added products to its apps doesn’t mean its earlier products no longer matter. If a monopolist has power in one market, he says, that can give it a “leg up” in adding a new product, “even if it’s not as good as the competitors’.”

  • Does a one cent difference count as price discrimination?

    Boasberg wonders how big of a difference he’d need to see in how many ads Meta serves to certain groups of users versus others in order to determine it matters in assessing its monopoly power. As a hypothetical, he asks if offering a product for a cent higher to some users would be enough to constitute price discrimination. Basically, he asks, “in quantifying the amount of discrimination that Meta is imposing, is that something that you can do such that it is meaningful?” He’s also asked, “how compelling does the evidence have to be regarding ad load?” Hemphill says there’s no magic number, but Meta’s own documents show that executives thought it would be meaningful to reduce the number of ads younger users see to increase engagement.

  • Is MeWe a red herring?

    Carlton’s approach to measuring where users go when Facebook and Instagram aren’t available paints a disingenuous picture of how the social media market works, Hemphill argues. This is in part because MeWe — which offers the very personal social networking services the FTC says Meta has monopolized — would be very far down the list of places users diverted their time to during the outages.

    “That’s an argument that MeWe’s in the market?” Boasberg asks, sounding perplexed. Hemphill says the analysis has to begin with looking at firms that offer similar products, and Carlton’s analysis leaves you with a “strange result.” Or, Boasberg counters, “the other argument is that MeWe is sort of a red herring that shouldn’t be considered.”

  • FTC expert critiques Meta’s ‘gotcha approach.’

    Meta’s expert Professor Carlton argued last week that the court should consider which apps users turn to when Facebook and Instagram aren’t available, like during its 2021 outage. In that case and in his own experiment, users turned to TikTok and YouTube more than Snapchat, even though that’s the app included in the FTC’s market definition. Hemphill says this is a flawed argument against Meta’s monopoly power because it shows users diverted their time to apps that even its own experts would likely agree don’t “plausibly belong in the market,” like Google Chrome and Candy Crush. “This is an illustration of the problems that result when you pursue this kind of gotcha approach,” he says.

  • FTC v. Meta trial enters its final day.

    The FTC has brought back its expert economic witness Scott Hemphill to rebut arguments from Meta’s experts about the company’s alleged monopoly power. Hemphill begins his rebuttal testimony by arguing that Meta’s experts used flawed analyses that do not get at the relevant questions to determine whether the company has monopolized a market for personal social networks.

  • Meta’s antitrust defense wraps with one big claim: WhatsApp and Instagram couldn’t be better

    STKS507_FTCxMETA_ANTITRUST_CVIRGINIA_4_D
    STKS507_FTCxMETA_ANTITRUST_CVIRGINIA_4_D
    Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

    For five weeks, the Federal Trade Commission asked a federal judge to imagine a world where Instagram and WhatsApp flourished outside Meta’s control instead of being acquired by the tech giant. In the sixth and final week of trial, Meta asked Judge James Boasberg to consider that actually, these apps might be as good as they can get.

    Meta rested its case Wednesday after a brief four days in court (many of its witnesses were also called by the FTC, so it already had the chance to question them in prior weeks). In those final days, Meta called on WhatsApp cofounder Brian Acton and an early Instagram infrastructure executive to explain how Meta helped those apps grow in ways they’d be unlikely to otherwise — countering testimony from Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom, who claimed Meta withheld resources to help the app grow and become safer, and believed Instagram would have still been a hit on its own.

    Read Article >
  • Meta rests its case.

    After about four days of witness testimony in its case-in-chief, and on the sixth week of trial, Meta concludes its defense. The FTC plans to put on its rebuttal case on Tuesday, where it plans to call back its economic expert Scott Hemphill to respond to Meta’s experts.

  • FTC resurrects an exhibit from the Google search antitrust case.

    Even though Carlton says Instagram has been such a “grand slam home run” that it’s hard to imagine it doing even better without Meta, the FTC points to past markets where output increased even while plagued by a monopolist. It pulls up a slide used by the Justice Department in its antitrust case against Google, showing that global PC shipments increased while Microsoft dominated, with similar trends for long distance calls during AT&T’s monopoly, and global crude oil production at the height of Standard Oil’s power. Carlton says that anything is possible and “the moon could fall out of the sky tomorrow, but if you’re asking me if its likely that output would be higher in the but-for world, the answer would be no.”

  • Instagram far outperformed expectations from its 2012 acquisition.

    If market players knew what Instagram would come to be worth in the years after Meta’s acquisition, the deal could have fetched a price at least 40 times more than the $1 billion it got at the time, Carlton testifies. “I just see no basis for making this assumption that Instagram in the but-for world would have been even better,” he says.

  • Did WhatsApp really need Meta?

    STKS507_FTCxMETA_ANTITRUST_CVIRGINIA_2_A
    STKS507_FTCxMETA_ANTITRUST_CVIRGINIA_2_A
    Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

    In its antitrust case against Meta, the US Federal Trade Commission is asking a judge to consider an alternate reality. In that world, the company never bought Instagram and WhatsApp. The two apps remained competitive with Facebook, developing features that competed for users’ attention. And that competition created a thriving ecosystem of social media apps where people can connect with their friends and family.

    Meta has spent the past several days — during which it’s begun lodging its case-in-chief in a Washington, DC, courthouse — building a counternarrative. In its telling of this alternate present, Instagram and WhatsApp are shadows of what they are in our world. They lacked the resources, expertise, and vision to become robust and valuable online platforms, let alone formidable competitors. And consumers are the ones who ultimately suffered.

    Read Article >
  • Facebook doesn’t show more ads to users who have more friends.

    Carlton performed a regression analysis to show that the FTC’s theory that Meta charges users interested in friend content a higher price through ads does not bear out. There’s “no systematic positive relationship between ad load and number of friends,” he concludes. In fact, he found, younger users who spend a larger percentage of time on Facebook ad Instagram on friends and family sharing receive fewer ads than older users who spend a smaller portion of their time on such content.

  • Instagram users are less interested in friend content than they used to be.

    In the past two years, Carlton says the amount of time US users spend on “friend” content on Instagram has declined from 11 percent to 7 percent. As of January, US Instagram users spent 51 percent of their time on the app on Reels. When Instagram has experimented with reducing users’ access to Reels, he says, time spent on the app goes down. Those who had full access to the short-form videos overall spent less time on Feed and Stories, which the FTC has said is associated with friend content that doesn’t compete with TikTok and YouTube.

  • Snapchat isn’t the main check on Meta’s power.

    Competition from TikTok and YouTube is really what keeps it at bay, Carlton testifies. He points to a chart Meta showed in its opening arguments demonstrating that a greater portion of Meta users went to those two apps than Snapchat during its 2021 outage. Ignoring this reality, Carlton says, “that’s just missing the boat. It’s just understating the importance of these very important influences on Meta’s behavior.”

  • Buying Instagram was a ‘grand slam home run.’

    Carlton is baffled how FTC expert Hemphill could say users would have been better off had Meta never bought Instagram in WhatsApp. Instagram, he says, “exceeded the expectations that people had at the time of acquisition, so to say that it would have been even better — how can you say that?” With WhatsApp, he adds, Meta actually lowered the price users had to pay for the service, from a dollar a year in some cases, to zero.

  • Meta’s key economic expert takes the stand.

    University of Chicago professor Dennis Carlton is up next. Carlton’s testimony will attempt to take down the analysis by the FTC’s expert witness Scott Hemphill by pulling apart his theory about the relevant market and competitors to Meta’s alleged dominance. Carlton calls Hemphill’s claims “confusing” and says he generally prefers to see “what people actually do than what people hypothesize they could do” when it comes to consumer behavior.

  • Judge rejects Meta’s bid to throw out the FTC’s antitrust case early.

    Boasberg ruled from the bench Tuesday denying Meta’s motion asking him to rule against the FTC even before it launched its defense case. It was something of a long-shot since the trial is already so close to the end, and Boasberg had already said he wouldn’t pause the case while weighing the motion. But the filing outlined some of the key reasons Meta thinks it should win the case, and we’re hearing these in more detail as it continues with its case-in-chief.

  • Instagram handled lots of growth and features before using Meta’s infrastructure.

    The FTC demonstrates that Instagram hit 200 million monthly active users, and launched its video and messaging features all before migrating from AWS to Meta’s internal infrastructure. Meta has used its infrastructure improvements for Instagram to defend against the FTC’s claims that its acquisition was anticompetitive. Shortway also concedes on cross-examination that his start date at Instagram was technically a few days after the acquisition closed, and a lot of the early issues he mentioned were ones he heard from speaking with co-founder Mike Krieger during the hiring process.

More Stories