FTC Accuses Meta of Withholding Information in Instagram and WhatsApp Acquisitions

The FTC accuses Meta of withholding vital information during reviews of its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions in 2012 and 2014. Meta denies the allegations, claiming the FTC has failed to provide evidence to support its claims.

author-image
Trim Correspondents
Updated On
New Update
FTC Accuses Meta of Withholding Information in Instagram and WhatsApp Acquisitions

FTC Accuses Meta of Withholding Information in Instagram and WhatsApp Acquisitions

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has accused Meta Platforms, formerly known as Facebook, of withholding vital information during the regulatory reviews of its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions in 2012 and 2014, respectively. This accusation is part of an ongoing lawsuit aimed at breaking up the social media giant, alleging that Meta monopolized the personal social networking market by buying up emerging rivals.

The FTC's accusations against Meta have significant implications for the tech industry and antitrust regulation, as it could set a precedent for how large tech companies are held accountable for their actions. If successful, the lawsuit could lead to major changes in the social media environment and have far-reaching consequences for consumers and competitors alike.

Meta acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, with both transactions undergoing FTC review before closing. The FTC conducted an in-depth review of the Instagram acquisition and a 30-day review of the WhatsApp acquisition. Despite these reviews, the FTC now claims that Meta did not provide all the necessary information, limiting the scope of the original investigations.

The FTC's allegations include claims that Meta withheld key documents and information, particularly pre-acquisition documents, which could have impacted the agency's decision-making process. The FTC also accuses Meta of increasing the ad load on Instagram and Facebook, degrading the user experience, and depriving Instagram of resources to innovate and improve features.

Meta's response to these allegations has been one of denial. Chris Sgro, a spokesperson for Meta, stated that the FTC has failed to provide evidence to support its claims. Sgro argued that Meta's investments in Instagram and WhatsApp have benefited consumers and that the company faces fierce competition in the market.

This is not the first time Meta has faced accusations of withholding information. In 2017, European antitrust regulators fined Meta €110 million for providing misleading information about the WhatsApp acquisition. The FTC's current lawsuit seeks to break up Meta, arguing that the company has stifled competition and innovation in the social networking space.

Instagram's popularity has been a significant factor in Meta's continued success, with the app generating $16.5 billion in revenue in the first six months of 2022, accounting for almost 30% of the company's overall revenue. This financial success highlights the importance of the acquisitions and the potential implications of the FTC's lawsuit.

US District Judge James Boasberg in Washington is overseeing the lawsuit. As of now, he has not indicated when he may rule on Meta's request to dismiss the case or set a trial date. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of antitrust enforcement and the structure of the social networking industry.

The FTC's accusations against Meta highlight ongoing concerns about corporate transparency and the potential for large tech companies to stifle competition. This case will be closely watched by industry experts and regulators worldwide as it progresses.

Key Takeaways

  • FTC accuses Meta of withholding vital info during Instagram and WhatsApp acquisition reviews.
  • Meta allegedly didn't provide key documents, limiting FTC's original investigations.
  • FTC claims Meta's actions stifled competition and innovation in social networking.
  • Lawsuit seeks to break up Meta, with potential far-reaching implications for tech industry.
  • Case outcome could set precedent for antitrust enforcement and social media regulation.