Meta may lose ownership of Instagram and Whatsapp

Meta and the US Federal Trade Commission are heading toward a high-stakes legal battle on April 14. This trial could force Meta to undo its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. 

Many view the trial as the first major test of how Donald Trump’s new antitrust regulator will handle large tech companies. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, has reportedly tried a last-minute lobbying effort at the White House, meeting President Trump several times in recent days. 

While there have been no official confirmations about what was discussed, there is growing speculation that Meta is exploring a settlement with the FTC to avoid a trial. 

If no agreement is reached, the case will move forward and could feature not just Zuckerberg, but former Meta chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and key leaders from rival platforms TikTok, Snap, and Google’s YouTube on the witness stand.

The FTC’s new chair, Andrew Ferguson, is a Trump appointee who has already signaled he intends to continue the agency’s aggressive approach toward Big Tech. He accuses large digital platforms of encroaching on personal freedoms and has promised that the “Trump-Vance FTC will never back down from taking on Big Tech.” 

He cautions that failing to confront the threat of monopolies could lead to scenarios like “Meta-Instagram,” a reference to the tech firm’s purchase of the photo-sharing app in 2012.

He aired these views during an event hosted by start-up incubator Y Combinator, where he criticized previous enforcement actions and outlined his determination to see competition laws enforced “vigorously.”

FTC says Meta tried to stifle competition

The upcoming trial extends from a case the FTC first brought more than four years ago, accusing Facebook of maintaining an unlawful monopoly. During Trump’s first term, the agency claimed the company had thwarted emerging competition by acquiring Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014. 

According to the regulator, these deals were aimed at stifling rivals rather than improving user experience, and the FTC asked that the purchases be reversed. Meta has countered that it expanded these platforms instead of burying them and points to TikTok’s fame as evidence of strong competition.

Bill Baer, a former head of the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, says that the Meta lawsuit has “significance both as it relates to these Meta acquisitions and to the broader principle of deterring dominant firms from gobbling up [budding rivals and employing] a Pac-Man defense.” 

The phrase “Pac-Man defense” references the strategy of consuming smaller rivals before they can grow into genuine threats. The FTC has alleged that Meta adopted a “systemic strategy” by either buying or burying potential challengers, cutting off services to companies that posed any risk to Meta’s market power.

Silicon Valley had hoped that Trump’s return to the White House would make mergers easier, but this trial could go the opposite way, discouraging them instead.

Ferguson’s approach follows the antitrust crackdown championed by officials appointed by former US president Joe Biden, including Lina Khan, who previously led the FTC, and Jonathan Kanter, once the head of the Department of Justice’s antitrust division. 

During that period, regulators scored big wins, such as a federal court ruling that Google held an illegal monopoly in online search. They also managed to push the Meta monopoly lawsuit to trial after an initial dismissal. 

Nevertheless, the FTC under Biden appointees took a hit when it could not prevent Meta from buying virtual reality company Within, nor could it stop Microsoft from purchasing Activision Blizzard, a major game developer.

If the court decides that Meta violated antitrust laws, there would be a second phase to determine remedies. Those could include a breakup of certain assets, an option that many believe would be the most dramatic step the FTC might pursue. 

However, a former senior antitrust official has voiced concerns that political motives might influence the outcome, stating it is “hard not to worry about whether” this process will “follow the rule of law rather than rule by law,” given the Trump administration’s history of clashing with perceived opponents.