New
Meta Says No Evidence It Monopolized Social Media Market, Asks Judge To Throw Out Antitrust Case
- Meta addresses the FTC's complaints over Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions
- It says quality and output have improved since it took over ownership
- It added that the FTC's evidence was speculative
Meta has filed a Rule 52(c) motion for judgement, claiming that the FTC has failed to prove its case relating to an antitrust lawsuit it brought on over Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
According to Meta, no distinct monopoly power evidence has been shown – being that Meta's apps are free to use, traditional pricing-based monopoly indicators don't apply.
The social media giant also noted that the FTC failed to show that it had reduced the quality or output of its services, instead arguing that user engagement has grown and app quality has improved since it took over.
Meta says the FTC has no evidence over its social media monopoly
In its early days, Instagram was a small photo-sharing app with limited features, no revenue, and poor infrastructure. The company proudly proclaims to have massively improved the app's quality, reach, and features post-acquisition - with co-founder Kevin Systrom testifying to the fact that Meta had accelerated the app's growth, allowing Instagram to "thrive."
Meta also added that WhatsApp was focused on simple messaging before it was bought out, with no plans to add social features or ads, therefore it was not deemed a competitive threat to Facebook.
As a whole, the FTC's evidence has been widely criticized by Meta, with even the FTC's lead expert admitting that much of the competitive harm claim was speculative.
"The FTC has no evidence that Meta has a 60 percent share of any market that includes TikTok or YouTube along with Snapchat," the motion added.
Meta also noted: "Virtually every feature of TikTok exists on Instagram (and Facebook), and virtually every feature of Instagram exists on TikTok."
The social media giant's conclusion is simple: "The Court should enter judgment in Meta’s favor under Rule 52(c)."
