Meta awaits ruling as US FTC antitrust trial ends

A seven-week trial between Meta Platforms and the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ended, with a decision now resting on US District Judge James Boasberg.

The trial focused on whether Meta holds an illegal monopoly in social media.

The FTC claims Meta’s purchases of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 were meant to reduce competition and strengthen its dominance in personal social networking.

If the FTC wins, Meta might have to sell one or both platforms, which could take years.

Meta denies these monopoly allegations, saying it faces strong competition from apps like TikTok, YouTube, and iMessage.

The company argues its services compete in various sectors beyond just social networking.

Judge Boasberg’s ruling is expected later this year and will decide if Meta violated antitrust laws.

If the FTC wins, a follow-up trial would determine remedies, with the FTC pushing for full divestiture and Meta calling the case weak.

🔗 Source: Bloomberg

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ The crucial battleground of market definition in tech antitrust cases

Defining the relevant market has historically been the decisive factor in tech antitrust cases, as seen in the Microsoft case where the court had to determine whether the browser market was separate from the operating system market 1.

In Meta’s trial, this pattern continues with the FTC arguing for a narrow “Personal Social Networking Services” market focused on friends and family connections, while Meta pushes for a broader definition that would include TikTok, YouTube, and messaging services 2.

The judge’s decision on market definition will likely determine the case outcome, as a narrower market definition would strengthen the FTC’s monopoly claims, while a broader definition incorporating short-form video and messaging services would dilute Meta’s market share 2.

Legal experts note the FTC faces the challenge of proving that Meta’s services offer something unique that other platforms don’t provide, similar to how the government demonstrated Microsoft’s distinct control over operating systems in the 1990s 1.