Introduction
Social media giant Meta is set to face a defining moment as it heads to trial on April 14, 2025, in a Washington federal court. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleges that Meta abused its market dominance by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp to stifle competition, a case that could force the company to divest these global powerhouses.
The FTC’s Case Against Meta
Initiated in December 2020 under Trump’s first administration, the FTC lawsuit claims Meta’s $1 billion purchase of Instagram in 2012 and $19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014 were strategic moves to eliminate emerging rivals. An email from Mark Zuckerberg, cited by the FTC, reveals his fears: “The potential impact of Instagram is really scary,” driving the costly buyout. The FTC argues these acquisitions, detailed in court records, prevented competition in the social media landscape.
Zuckerberg’s Lobbying Efforts
With Donald Trump back in the White House, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—ranked third-richest globally—has intensified lobbying efforts, including White House visits and inauguration fund contributions, to push for a settlement. However, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson told The Verge, “The President recognizes we’ve got to enforce the laws,” downplaying intervention hopes. Cornell Law’s George Hay adds, “I’m not sure Trump is persuaded that Zuckerberg is worthy of redemption.”
Big Tech Under Scrutiny
The Meta case is one of five major U.S. antitrust actions against tech giants. Google faced a guilty verdict for search dominance in 2024, while Apple and Amazon tackle their own lawsuits, as reported by Reuters. Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and rival executives will testify in an eight-week trial overseen by Judge James Boasberg, who warns the FTC faces “hard questions” to prove its claims.
Meta’s Defense and Implications
Meta defends its acquisitions, arguing billions in investments turned Instagram (now 2 billion users) and WhatsApp into successes, not monopolies. They note initial FTC approval and competition from TikTok and others, questioning the case’s validity on Big Tech grounds. A loss could reshape social media regulation in 2025 and beyond.