The high-stakes court fight between Meta Platforms and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is more than a lawsuit—it’s an unprecedented glimpse inside the internal workings of one of the world’s most influential technology giants. At its core, whether Meta’s blockbuster purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp were shrewd planning or a deliberate attempt to snuff out competition.
As the trial in Washington gets underway, the verdict may have far-reaching consequences—perhaps even for the entire tech sector.
The Argument of the FTC: Buy or Bury?
The FTC is being bold in its assertion. Its attorneys contend that Meta employed its market-dominating power to crush nascent threats, trading off control for competition. Their argument centers on Meta’s flashy acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014—actions they claim were more about wiping out future competitors before they could become formidable threats.
Central to the FTC’s case are internal communications from CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In one message, he described Instagram’s rising popularity as “really scary,” even noting that some Facebook employees were spending more time on Instagram than on their platform. He admired Instagram’s superior camera and photo-sharing features, capabilities that Facebook lacked at the time.
The FTC depicts the company as happy to spend whatever it needed to kill competition: $1 billion on Instagram and $19 billion on WhatsApp. To regulators, those weren’t investments—they were tactical defensive maneuvers.
Behind Closed Doors: Meta’s Competitive Mindset
The trial has illuminated the inner workings of Meta, especially its handling of competition. At one point, Zuckerberg considered buying Instagram simply to allow it to languish, an idea that he rationalized as keeping the brand warm but, in reduced priority standing, would avoid retribution while discreetly eliminating a threat to the market. Even though Meta did eventually invest in the growth of Instagram, the internal deliberations expose a firm intensely concerned with strategic domination.
And it wasn’t only Instagram. Meta offered to buy Snapchat on more than one occasion—first $3 billion, then $6 billion—both of which were turned down. When Snapchat introduced the Stories feature, Meta moved quickly to add a similar product to Instagram. Zuckerberg called Snapchat back then “more of a competitor for Instagram and News Feed than it ever was for messaging.
Other Meta targets were Path, a niche social network focused on close friendships, and even messenger apps such as WeChat and Line. The firm even contemplated blocking adverts for such apps, lest they steal users away.
Meta’s Defense: Competition Is Fierce
Meta, in turn, is fighting back hard. Meta contends that the FTC’s case conflicts with the digital reality of today. According to them, the social media space is more populated and competitive than ever before, with TikTok, YouTube, X (formerly known as Twitter), iMessage, and many others competing for users’ attention.
Meta’s lawyers cite statistics on how fast consumer behavior changes. When TikTok was temporarily banned from the United States, for instance, traffic on Instagram and Facebook spiked—evidence, they contend, that consumers have numerous options available.
The company further asserts that it did not acquire Instagram and WhatsApp to mothball them. Rather, Meta states it spent a lot to expand and develop the two platforms into what are currently the worldwide-use apps.
Market Definition: The Trial’s Pivotal Question
One central question in the trial is what market Meta competes in. The FTC is looking closely at platforms that allow individuals to connect with friends and family, a perspective that constructs Meta as a monopoly giant. But Meta and most legal commentators counter that this perspective overlooks a larger competitive market involving entertainment, messaging, and content discovery platforms.
Judge James Boasberg, the presiding judge in the case, has himself questioned the FTC’s restrictive approach. For the FTC to win, it needs to demonstrate that Meta enjoys monopoly power in today’s market, not merely when the acquisitions were made a decade or so ago.
What Would Happen If the FTC Wins?
If the court rules in favor of the FTC, then Meta might have to sell Instagram and WhatsApp. That would be a huge upset—not just for Meta’s business model, which is highly dependent on advertising throughout its network—but for the makeup of Big Tech in general.
But the ripple effects would not end there. The other technology giants, such as Google and Amazon, are also under antitrust scrutiny. A verdict in the Meta case could provide a strong precedent, empowering regulators to push back more vigorously against takeovers and market strategies throughout the industry.
As one antitrust expert put it: “We’re trying to apply 19th-century antitrust laws to 21st-century digital markets.” The outcome of this trial may test whether those old rules still work—or if it’s time for new ones.
Why It Matters
At its essence, the Meta trial is about more than any single company’s history. It’s about defining competition in an era where technology changes quicker than regulation can follow. The internal emails, the forced buyout strategy, and he hyper-vigilance around competitors—all reveal a raw glimpse into the pressure tech businesses are under to remain ahead.
And it poses a basic question for the digital age: When large platforms acquire smaller rivals, are they encouraging innovation, or suffocating it?
The responses could remake the rules of the road for Big Tech, shaping how companies expand, how users interact, and just how equitable the marketplace is.
