Meta Antitrust Trial: Zuckerberg Reflects on Instagram Deal \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Mark Zuckerberg once considered spinning off Instagram due to potential antitrust issues, a 2018 email reveals. During a federal trial, he testified about his concerns and motivations behind acquiring Instagram. The trial could force Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp amid monopoly allegations.
Quick Looks
- A 2018 email shows Zuckerberg floated the idea of spinning off Instagram.
- The antitrust trial centers on Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
- Zuckerberg testified for over seven hours across two days.
- FTC alleges Meta aimed to eliminate competition through strategic buyouts.
- Zuckerberg defended the acquisitions as product-driven, not monopolistic.
- The FTC’s case excludes rivals like TikTok and YouTube from its market definition.
- Meta attorney emphasized competition and free access to services.
Deep Look
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s past consideration of spinning off Instagram took center stage during a pivotal antitrust trial, as a newly revealed 2018 internal email suggested the tech mogul was contemplating whether keeping Instagram under Meta’s corporate umbrella would be sustainable under growing regulatory scrutiny. The revelation came on the second day of a landmark case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which alleges that Meta — formerly Facebook — illegally monopolized the social media market by acquiring potential rivals.
In the email, Zuckerberg speculated about whether “spinning Instagram out” might be the only viable way to pursue strategic goals as Meta matured and faced potential government intervention. He also acknowledged a “non-trivial chance” that regulators would eventually force Meta to separate from Instagram and possibly WhatsApp within five to ten years. His comments offered a rare candid look into how one of Silicon Valley’s most powerful executives viewed the threat of antitrust enforcement, even before formal legal action was taken.
What makes this revelation significant is that it appears to align with the very premise of the FTC’s case: that Meta’s acquisitions were not just about innovation, but about preempting competition and maintaining dominance. According to the agency, Meta’s purchase of Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion, followed by its $22 billion acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014, were strategically motivated moves to eliminate emerging threats before they could grow into serious challengers.
During over seven hours of testimony across two days, Zuckerberg defended Meta’s actions while frequently pushing back against government attorney Daniel Matheson’s interpretation of internal emails and corporate strategy. While Matheson pointed to language in Zuckerberg’s emails that described Instagram as a “rapidly growing, threatening network,” and cited concerns over rival apps like Path, Zuckerberg countered that the intent behind those communications was often misunderstood.
He testified that Facebook was actively developing its own camera-sharing app at the time and that Instagram’s technology simply outperformed their internal tools. “I thought Instagram was better, so I wanted to buy them,” Zuckerberg explained, arguing that the acquisition was about product improvement rather than neutralizing a competitive threat.
Moreover, Zuckerberg emphasized that while some of the language in early emails may have sounded aggressive or strategic, much of it came from initial deliberations rather than finalized decisions. “What I wrote at the time didn’t fully capture the complete picture,” he told the court. He also challenged the idea that the goal of acquiring Instagram or WhatsApp was to dominate the industry by force. Instead, he portrayed the deals as ways to accelerate innovation and bring better services to users, particularly on mobile platforms where Facebook was lagging behind.
But the FTC views the situation differently. The lawsuit, initially filed in 2020 under President Trump’s administration, alleges that Meta’s strategy was to identify, target, and acquire potential threats before they could establish themselves. The agency argues that this strategy deprived consumers of competition, limited innovation, and gave Meta unchecked control over key segments of the social media ecosystem.
As Zuckerberg defended Meta’s growth strategy, his legal team highlighted that Meta offers free services and faces robust competition from a variety of platforms, including TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and Apple’s iMessage. However, the FTC’s legal argument rests on a narrower definition of the market — one that includes only personal social networking services and excludes broader video-sharing and messaging platforms. This market definition is a crucial point of contention, as it could determine the outcome of the case.
Meta’s attorney Mark Hansen also questioned Zuckerberg and argued that the company does not possess monopolistic power in a highly competitive tech landscape. Hansen noted that users have alternatives, and that charging for Facebook or Instagram would drive users elsewhere. Zuckerberg echoed this sentiment, insisting that maintaining free access is critical to Meta’s business model and proof that it doesn’t dominate the market unfairly.
The trial also sheds light on the dramatic evolution of Facebook’s acquisition strategy. Before Instagram, Facebook focused mainly on “acqui-hires” — buying small startups to absorb their teams, then shutting the companies down. Instagram marked a strategic shift: it was Facebook’s first major acquisition that remained operational as a separate app. The acquisition allowed Facebook to jumpstart its mobile transition and win over younger users.
Instagram, at the time of acquisition, had zero revenue and fewer than 15 employees. Today, it is one of the most powerful forces in online media, with over 2 billion users globally and significant advertising revenue. WhatsApp, similarly, started as a simple messaging tool but has since become a global communications platform — particularly outside the U.S.
The trial also revisits Facebook’s failed attempts to buy Snapchat, which chose to remain independent despite a $3 billion offer. That rejection proved to Meta the importance of acquiring emerging platforms early, and likely informed its aggressive approach to purchasing Instagram and WhatsApp.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is presiding over the case. Last year, he denied Meta’s request for a summary judgment, signaling that the case had sufficient merit to move to trial. His ultimate ruling could force Meta to divest both Instagram and WhatsApp — a move that would fundamentally reshape the landscape of digital communication and social networking.
For Meta, the stakes couldn’t be higher. If the FTC succeeds, it would mark one of the most significant victories in the U.S. government’s ongoing efforts to rein in Big Tech and restore competition to the digital economy. For Zuckerberg and his company, it’s not just about defending past decisions, but also about preserving the structure of one of the most influential companies in the world.
Meta Antitrust Trial
You must Register or Login to post a comment.