meta filed a motion Friday requesting the dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust lawsuit against the social media company — arguing the agency still hasn’t provided any basis for its litigation, which could potentially force meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp.
In December 2020, theFTCand more than 40 state attorneys general sued the company (then called Facebook), alleging it illegally acquired competitorsInstagramandWhatsAppin an abuse of its monopoly power. The FTC’s original lawsuitwas dismissedin June 2021, after a federal court judge found the agency has insufficient evidence that the social media giant held a monopoly. Two months later, the FTC filed an amended lawsuit it said established that meta (nee Facebook) since 2011 has maintained “a dominant share of the relevant market for U.S. personal social networking services.”
The FTC’s suit seeks potential remedies including requiring meta to divest or restructure its businesses, “including, but not limited to, Instagram and/or WhatsApp,” in a way that would “restore the competition that would exist” in the absence of the alleged anticompetitive conduct.
In a statement announcing meta’s motion to dismiss, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, chief legal officer Jennifer Newstead said, “The evidence shows exactly what we said it would: meta faces fierce competition from a range of platforms – from TikTok and X to YouTube and Snapchat. Further, meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which regulators reviewed and cleared more than a decade ago, have benefited consumers. Through billions of dollars and millions of hours of investment, we’ve made the apps better, more reliable, and more secure.” meta’s memorandum in support of the motion is at this link.
Facebook in 2012 paid $1 billion to acquire Instagram, and in 2014 it inked a $19 billion deal for mobile messaging app WhatsApp. (The company changed its corporate name to meta Platforms Inc. in October 2021.)
“The FTC reviewed both acquisitions years ago and allowed them to close,” Newstead said in the statement. “The decision to revisit done deals is tantamount to announcing that no sale will ever be final. This lawsuit not only sows doubt and uncertainty about the U.S. government’s merger review process and whether acquiring businesses can actually rely on the outcomes of the regulatory review process, but it will also make companies think twice about investing in innovation, since they may be punished if that innovation leads to success.”
Newstead’s statement continued, “Put simply, antitrust laws are supposed to promote competition and protect consumers, not punish companies for innovating to give people greater value and choice. We will continue to vigorously defend our company and the ability of people and businesses to choose the great products we offer.”
The case is one of several legal actions the U.S. government has pursued against Big Tech companies. Most recently, the Justice Department filed an antitrust suit against Apple, alleging the tech company has perpetuated a monopoly with the iPhone. TheFTC sued Amazonon antitrust grounds last fall, and the DOJ last year filed an antitrustlawsuit against Google.
