For five weeks, the Federal Trade Commission has questioned 30 witnesses as it has tried to prove that Meta illegally monopolized social networking through killer acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
On Thursday, the government wrapped up its side in the case — Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms — setting the stage for the social media giant formerly known as Facebook to mount its defense.
During the first half of the trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the government grilled Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, alongside executives from apps including TikTok, YouTube, Pinterest and LinkedIn. F.T.C. lawyers tried to prove that Meta had overpaid for rival apps more than a decade ago in a “buy or bury” strategy.
Here are the F.T.C.’s main arguments.
That Meta Was Nervous About Rivals
The F.T.C. spent much of its time arguing that Meta had bought Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion two years later because Mr. Zuckerberg and other executives viewed those apps as competitive threats.
Government lawyers pointed to hundreds of emails, board documents and instant messages that showed Meta executives’ near-constant paranoia about new competition.
In 2012, Mr. Zuckerberg expressed his desire in emails to lieutenants to “neutralize” Instagram, a rising competitor that had a better smartphone camera app than Facebook. Soon after, Meta executives discussed the fear that messaging apps would take on social networking features, making them competitors.
As the F.T.C.’s first witness, Mr. Zuckerberg defended the messages, saying it was his job to be nervous about competition. He added that it was normal for any business executive to think about acquisitions as a strategy to stay ahead.
That Instagram Languished Under Meta
The F.T.C. argued that Instagram could have thrived and created more competition in social networking if Meta hadn’t acquired it.
Government lawyers accused Mr. Zuckerberg of starving Instagram of resources in favor of supporting his own app, Facebook. To make their case, they brought in a key witness: Kevin Systrom, a founder of Instagram.
Under questioning from the government, Mr. Systrom, who left Meta in 2018, described how Mr. Zuckerberg had broken promises of turning Instagram into a thriving, but separate, business within Meta. Instagram received support from Meta, but not to the degree Mr. Zuckerberg was giving his own app, Facebook, Mr. Systrom testified.
By the time he left Meta, Mr. Systrom said, Instagram was growing rapidly, but he added that Mr. Zuckerberg had denied many of his requests for more staff to work on content moderation and engineering.
“Mark was not investing in Instagram because he believed we were a threat to their growth,” Mr. Systrom said.
But when questioned by Meta’s lawyers, he conceded that Instagram had benefited from its new parent company’s resources.
That Meta Secured a Monopoly
The F.T.C. argued that Meta monopolized what the government calls the “personal social networking” market, which connects friends and family.
Under that narrow definition, the government said, Meta really competes only with Snap, the maker of Snapchat, which Meta dwarfs in size and users.
As part of its case, the government pointed to a September 2006 company post in which Mr. Zuckerberg said, “Facebook is about real connections to actual friends.”
Meta defended itself, saying it began as a network primarily for friends and family but had evolved into a broader entertainment platform that competed with all social media companies, especially TikTok and YouTube. Mr. Zuckerberg testified that only about 20 percent of the content on Facebook, and about 10 percent of the content on Instagram, was from friends.
How Has the Judge Responded?
Before the trial began, the presiding judge, James E. Boasberg, said he had never really used Facebook or Instagram. The government has spent some of its time calling expert witnesses to explain the ins and outs of the technology to the judge.
The government intended the tech tutorials to differentiate the various apps and underscore Meta’s monopoly. But more than a decade has elapsed since the acquisitions, and the judge has acknowledged that technology markets have evolved.
Judge Boasberg asked an F.T.C. expert witness about the natural change of interests and motivations of users of technology. And he noted that many of the other social media app executives had testified that they offered similar features, including options to share things with friends and family.
The F.T.C. argued that there was a “difference in kind” between Meta and other social media apps that didn’t have friends and sharing at their core.
“Why aren’t the way these are used now just a difference in degree?” Judge Boasberg asked.
Cecilia Kang reports on technology and regulatory policy for The Times from Washington. She has written about technology for over two decades.
The post What the U.S. Has Argued in the Meta Antitrust Trial appeared first on New York Times.
