Zuck stuck on Trump’s bad side: FTC appeals loss in Meta monopoly case

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is taking further action against Meta Platforms, Inc., as it seeks to appeal a recent court ruling that dismissed allegations of the company holding an illegal monopoly in the realm of personal social networking. This legal maneuver comes amid lingering concerns about Meta's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, which the FTC argues have stifled competition in the market. In its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the FTC contends that substantial evidence presented during the initial trial demonstrated that Meta's acquisitions were improper. The agency had previously sought to force a breakup of Meta's services, placing the future of platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp at risk. In a statement released on Tuesday, the FTC reiterated its position, asserting that Meta has unlawfully maintained a monopoly in personal social networking services through anticompetitive practices. The commission highlighted that these practices include the acquisition of significant competitors such as Instagram and WhatsApp. Interestingly, the case against Meta has historical ties to the Trump administration, with FTC spokesperson Joe Simonson noting that the investigation began during Trump's presidency. At the time, Trump expressed frustration with Facebook, accusing the platform and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, of bias against him. This tension escalated when Meta suspended Trump's accounts in 2021 following the Capitol riots. In a bid to mend fences, Zuckerberg has made various gestures towards Trump, including a $1 million donation to his inauguration fund and a $25 million settlement related to the suspensions of Trump's accounts. However, these efforts appear to have little influence on the FTC's determination to challenge Meta’s alleged monopolistic practices. The agency's commitment to scrutinizing Meta remains firm, with Simonson emphasizing that the FTC believes the company’s actions have harmed American consumers by violating antitrust laws through its acquisitions.