Landmark Antitrust Trial Could Force Meta to Sell Instagram.
A high-stakes antitrust trial against Meta begins this week in Washington, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) aiming to unwind Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC alleges that Meta, which owns Facebook, purchased both platforms to eliminate emerging competition and cement a monopoly in the social networking space.
Although the FTC initially approved the 2012 and 2014 acquisitions, it now argues that Meta’s actions have stifled innovation and harmed consumers. If the FTC wins, CEO Mark Zuckerberg could be forced to sell off both Instagram and WhatsApp—a move that would mark one of the most dramatic breakups in Silicon Valley history.
Antitrust experts say the case hinges on proving that Meta acquired Instagram specifically to neutralize a growing rival. “The [FTC’s] argument is the acquisition of Instagram was a way of neutralizing this rising competitive threat to Facebook,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor of antitrust at Vanderbilt Law School.
Allensworth added that Zuckerberg’s own emails may be the most compelling evidence: “He said it’s better to buy than to compete. It’s hard to get more literal than that.”
Meta has argued that the mergers benefited users by improving the quality of its platforms. “They’re going to say the real question is: are consumers better off as a result of this merger?” said Allensworth. “They’ll put on a lot of evidence that Instagram became what it is today because it benefited from being owned by Facebook.”
Zuckerberg and former COO Sheryl Sandberg are both expected to testify during the trial, which could last several weeks.
Politics and Pressure
Originally filed during Donald Trump’s first term, the case now risks political entanglement under his second administration. Reports have surfaced that Zuckerberg lobbied Trump directly to get the FTC to drop the lawsuit. When asked about the report, Meta avoided a direct answer but stated: “The FTC’s lawsuits against Meta defy reality.”
“More than 10 years after the FTC reviewed and cleared our acquisitions, the commission’s action in this case sends the message that no deal is ever truly final,” a Meta spokesperson told the BBC.
Recent political shakeups at the FTC have raised concerns about interference. Trump fired two Democratic commissioners in March—Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya—who have since filed a lawsuit claiming the firings were meant to intimidate remaining members. “The president sent a very clear signal,” Slaughter told the BBC. “If they don’t want to do a favor for his political allies, they’re on the chopping block as well.”
Despite political pressure, current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson—appointed by Trump—said he would “obey lawful orders” if asked to drop the case, but added he’d be “very surprised” if that happened.
Meta’s trial comes as another major antitrust case, USA v Google, enters its remedies phase after the Justice Department successfully argued Google has a monopoly in search.
Still, legal experts say the FTC faces a tougher battle with Meta due to the fragmented nature of the social media space. “They have a real uphill battle,” said Laura Phillips-Sawyer, associate professor of business law at the University of Georgia. “There’s more competition in personal network services compared to online search.”
Meta claims it competes with platforms like TikTok, YouTube, iMessage, and X. “The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows,” Meta said. “Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others.”
Conclusion
Meta's grip on the digital landscape reflects a troubling reality of unchecked tech consolidation. By acquiring rivals before they can truly compete, Meta has distorted the market and insulated itself from innovation and accountability. Despite its spin about consumer benefits, the company’s strategy of “buy, not compete” reveals a fundamental contempt for fair play. This trial offers a rare opportunity to confront that power. Regardless of the legal outcome, the case underscores a critical need to rebalance the internet economy and break up platforms that have grown too large, too dominant, and too dangerous for democratic oversight.
