Meta Asks Judge to Dismiss FTC's Antitrust Case

Meta has filed a motion asking DC District Court Judge James Boasberg to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust case against it, saying the agency has failed to make its case.

The FTC sued Meta over its ownership of Instagram and WhatsApp, claiming that the company has an illegal monopoly on the social media space. The agency claims Meta is stifling competition and wants to see the company sell off both Instagram and WhatsApp.

With the close of the FTC’s arguments, Meta wants Judge Boasberg to dismiss the case, saying the FTC failed to make it.

With the close of the FTC’s case, the trial record establishes that Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) acquired Instagram and WhatsApp in order to improve them and expand its own portfolio of services – to better compete against many dynamic, innovative, and fierce rivals. And Meta did just that. Meta has made two promising mobile apps with uncertain prospects into two of the most successful apps in the world, enjoyed by approximately half of the planet’s population (including hundreds of millions of U.S. consumers) on demand, in unlimited quantities, all for free. The FTC has not carried its burden to prove that Meta “is currently violating the antitrust laws.” Order at 1 (Apr. 2, 2025), ECF No. 503. The Court should therefore enter judgment in Meta’s favor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c).

Meta’s Counterargument

Meta then counters the FTC’s arguments on two key points.

First, the record demonstrates that Meta does not have monopoly power in the alleged market for “personal social networking services” (“PSNS”) – one in which only Snapchat and MeWe compete with Meta’s apps to serve user demand for “friends-and-family sharing.” Direct evidence shows that market-wide output has exploded – the fruits of competition, not monopoly – and the FTC has no proof that the overall quality of Meta’s apps has declined, much less below any competitive benchmark. Indirect evidence, in turn, underscores that the FTC’s candidate “PSNS” market is a fiction. And recent data decisively refutes the claim that “friends-andfamily sharing” insulates Meta’s apps from competition from (among many others) YouTube, iMessage, and, most dramatically, TikTok – a disruptive entrant that forced Meta to transform Facebook and Instagram or risk precipitous decline. Without a relevant antitrust market limited to Meta’s apps and Snapchat (plus MeWe), the case fails.

Second, the record shows that Meta’s acquisitions were not anticompetitive, another reason the case fails. Instagram and WhatsApp have grown and grown and grown – delighting billions of users – because Meta has devoted billions of dollars and resources to that end. Nothing but speculation supports the claim that, if Meta had left Instagram and WhatsApp to go it alone, “friends-and-family sharing” users would be even better off. The founder of Instagram testified to the contrary. The FTC’s principal expert admitted this is all just speculation without evidence of what would have happened without Meta. And WhatsApp had no intention of becoming a Facebook-style app, let alone in the United States, where its presence was insignificant at the time of the acquisition. The FTC thus cannot show that these acquisitions “harm[ed] the competitive process and thereby harm[ed] consumers.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc) (per curiam).

Meta goes on to argue the FTC failed to demonstrate that it has monopoly power over the market. It specifically targets the FTC’s claim that it increased price or reduced output.

As undisputed testimony shows, Meta cannot profitably charge users any price for Facebook and Instagram without losing those users to Meta’s many free rivals.

That leaves the FTC to argue that Meta shows users too many ads, which it alleges is like charging too high a price. But the FTC’s economic expert offered no opinion regarding a competitive benchmark for the right number of ads, let alone that Meta showed more ads than such a competitive benchmark.

Meta also does not profit by showing more ads to users who do not click on them – that mistaken view of how ads work is just not how the business makes money. See May 1 Tr. 182:13-183:4 (Hegeman: “[T]he thing that really matters for our business growth is whether we can show more relevant ads that people will actually choose to click on and make purchases from.”)

No reduced “quality.” Meta knows of no case finding monopoly power based solely on a claimed degradation in product quality, and the FTC has cited none – even as Meta has raised this point repeatedly. Nor has the FTC offered any measure of overall quality that Meta’s apps fail to meet. And with respect to the few aspects of quality the FTC claims have declined – ad load, privacy, integrity, and features – the FTC offered no competitive benchmark that Meta fell below.

Meta also disputes the FTC’s argument regarding its profits, pointing out that its profits are legally irrelevant. Even one of the FTC witnesses testified that increased profits can be the result of any number of factors, including innovation, increased demand, or simply superior execution.

Is the FTC’s Case Strong?

Right from the get-go, the FTC had a relatively tough case to make. The agency wants to roll back acquisitions that happened more than a decade ago. Meta, then Facebook, purchased Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

In the intervening years, not only have both platforms continued to grow as part of Meta, but they have both become heavily intertwined with the rest of the company. Ripping them out now would not only be a massive undertaking, but could deal a crippling blow for both Instagram and WhatsApp.

Meta appears to have a solid argument that the social media landscape remains competitive. TikTok remains one of the most popular platforms globally. In addition, X appears to be regaining lost ground, while Bluesky continues to grow at a solid pace.

Only time will tell how the case turns out. While we’re not legal experts, it seems like Meta has a solid chance of winning its case.