Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the witness stand on Monday, April 14, as the first witness in an antitrust trial where the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleges the tech giant illegally monopolized the social media market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

The trial could force Meta to divest from these platforms purchased over a decade ago, testing the government’s ability to challenge Big Tech under antitrust law.

FTC Arguments Focus on Market Dominance

As The Washington Post reports, FTC attorney Daniel Matheson argued in his opening remarks that Meta “decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals rather than compete with them. “

The government’s case centers on the claim that Meta maintains a monopoly in the “personal social networking market” and that its acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 were part of a strategy to eliminate competitive threats.

Matheson presented internal correspondence from Zuckerberg showing concern about Instagram’s growth when Facebook was struggling to adjust to the mobile app era. He cited a message in which Zuckerberg recognized that by acquiring other platforms, “what we’re really buying is time” before a new competitor could reach a similar scale.

The FTC contends these acquisitions caused Meta to invest less in improving Facebook while depriving users of more social media options.

Meta’s Defense Claims Broad Competition

Zuckerberg rejected the FTC’s characterization of Meta’s market position, arguing that the company competes against a wide array of online competitors beyond just communication apps that connect people with friends and family.

“The vast majority of the experience is more around exploring your interests, entertainment, things like that,” Zuckerberg testified. “That’s kind of just been the trend the whole history of the company.”

Meta lawyer Mark Hansen emphasized this point during opening arguments, displaying similar-looking photos of Instagram Reels and TikTok to demonstrate competitive pressure. “I can’t tell the difference,” Hansen said, adding that “the FTC’s entire case turns on” the idea that “Instagram doesn’t compete with TikTok.”

Hansen called the lawsuit “misguided” and argued that consumers have benefited from Meta’s investments in the acquired platforms. “What price did Meta charge before it became a supposed monopoly?” Hansen asked. “It was zero, and it stayed that way until today.”

Zuckerberg Addresses Acquisition Motives

Under questioning from Matheson, Zuckerberg acknowledged the company realized as early as 2010 that it had made a mistake in its mobile strategy. When asked whether he was interested in buying Instagram because it had better camera functionality than Facebook and its users were sharing photos among each other, Zuckerberg confirmed, “It was a valuable service for sharing photos.”

The Meta CEO also addressed a 2011 communication expressing frustration with the company’s faltering efforts to build a stand-alone photo app code-named “Snap,” intended to compete with Instagram. “The way I read this message is that I’m not happy about how we’re executing on that project,” Zuckerberg said.

When pressed about subsequent investment in Instagram after acquisition, Zuckerberg insisted, “In practice, we ended up investing a ton in it after we acquired it.”

Stakes and Timeline

If U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg sides with the FTC, Meta could be forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, which have become crucial to the company’s business. According to analytics firm EMARKETER, Instagram is expected to represent slightly more than half of the company’s revenue from the American market this year.

The trial will include testimony from high-profile current and former Meta executives, including former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg. Representatives from Snap, TikTok, and Pinterest are also expected to testify.

The FTC’s initial lawsuit against Meta, filed during President Donald Trump’s first term in 2020, was dismissed in June 2021. After being refiled with strengthened evidence in August 2021, Judge Boasberg allowed it to move forward, ruling that the case “must go to trial.”