Meta’s Antitrust Trial: Are Instagram and Facebook on the Line?

The U.S. government has officially rested its case in Meta’s antitrust trial, a landmark legal battle that could reshape the future of tech mergers. At stake is whether Meta (formerly Facebook) should be forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, two major acquisitions from 2012 and 2014 respectively.

This isn’t just a fight over old deals. It’s a defining moment for how regulators police digital power—and whether tech giants can keep buying up potential rivals unchecked. The outcome could either open the floodgates for stricter scrutiny or shut the door on retroactive breakups entirely. 

What is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) arguing, how is Meta defending itself, and why does this trial matter beyond Silicon Valley? Let’s take a closer look. 

Meta on trial: Monopoly or just market leader? 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleges that Meta bought Instagram and WhatsApp to neutralise rising threats and solidify dominance in “personal social networking services.” This market, as defined by the FTC, focuses on apps connecting people with real-life friends and family. 

To support its case, the FTC has leaned on historical internal communications. One key piece of evidence is a 2006 company blog post in which Mark Zuckerberg wrote, “Facebook is about real connections to actual friends.” According to the FTC, this underlines Meta’s unique hold on personal networks—an advantage no rival can match. 

Meta, however, insists that the FTC has defined the market too narrowly. It argues that it competes with platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and X (formerly Twitter) for user attention and not just for friendship-based connections. “Instagram competes with TikTok and YouTube, just ask any 17-year-old,” said a Meta spokesperson after the FTC rested its case. 

Inside the courtroom: Strategy, nostalgia, and shifting social norms 

Meta’s Antitrust Trial in Washington, D.C. began in April 2025 and is presided over by Judge James Boasberg. Meta’s top leadership has testified, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former COO Sheryl Sandberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, and Tom Alison, Head of the Facebook app at Meta. 

Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom delivered some of the most revealing testimony. He said he felt Facebook had “undermined Instagram’s independence” post-acquisition, which aligns with the FTC’s narrative that the purchase was meant to neutralise a competitive threat. 

Adam Mosseri acknowledged that Instagram is no longer primarily about connecting with friends. “I’d put Instagram between Facebook and TikTok, but much closer to TikTok,” he said during testimony. That supports Meta’s position that usage patterns and expectations have evolved dramatically. 

Even Tom Alison reflected this shift, calling Facebook a platform in “upheaval.” He testified: “Facebook was built 21 years ago and Gen Z users have different expectations.” When asked about newer features like Reels, he added, “If we didn’t invest in Reels, then long term, our entire business was probably going to go down significantly.” 

A new kind of antitrust argument 

Unlike most antitrust cases focusing on prices, Meta’s antitrust trial deals with free services. That makes proving consumer harm more complicated. The FTC instead argues that Meta’s actions harmed innovation, reduced quality, and limited user choice. 

Scott Hemphill, an economics professor and FTC expert, claimed Meta acted like a monopolist. He argued that Meta increased ad volume instead of improving user experience when ad quality rose. However, under cross-examination, Hemphill admitted: “I’m not aware of a single document that connects the dots in that exact way.” 

The broader legal challenge here is market definition. TikTok’s Head of Operations, Adam Presser, stated, “I don’t think of us as a social app.” Meanwhile, YouTube’s Aaron Filner said, “People rarely use YouTube to share content with friends they know.”

These statements complicate the FTC’s effort to carve out a clean market definition. 

Judge Boasberg’s Tightrope 

Judge Boasberg, who does not use social media himself, has acknowledged the difficulty of drawing hard boundaries. He observed that features like feeds, messaging, and short videos now exist across nearly all platforms. 

He asked one witness, “Aren’t those norms changing all the time?” He also compared generational shifts in digital communication to the decline of voice calls, calling them “elderly communications.” The challenge for him is to determine whether Meta’s dominance is due to unfair conduct or simply the outcome of evolving user behaviour. 

His ruling will hinge on whether these apps are fundamentally different or just variations of the same type of service. 

Why this case matters beyond Meta? 

The U.S. government has launched only two other antitrust trials in recent years to break up major tech companies. Both targeted Google’s ad and search businesses. If the court sides with the FTC, it may order Meta to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp, marking an unprecedented move in modern tech.

Such a ruling would send a chilling message through Silicon Valley. For startups, acquisition by a big player is often the exit strategy. If those deals become legally vulnerable years later, it could shift investor interest away from acquisition-based growth models. 

Daniel Rubinfeld, former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s antitrust division, said, “If the FTC wins, there will likely be more aggressive antitrust enforcement.” Even without a breakup, a strong ruling could prompt Big Tech firms to rethink their M&A strategies. Regulators in the UK and Europe are already taking bolder steps, such as nearly blocking Microsoft’s Activision acquisition.

This U.S. decision could accelerate global enforcement trends. 

What happens next in the Meta’s antitrust trial? 

On May 16, 2025, the U.S. government officially rested its case, having presented five weeks of testimony and evidence. This marked the end of the FTC’s argument that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp harmed competition. 

Now, the trial enters its next phase. 

Meta is currently presenting its defence. This includes testimony from executives, industry experts, and competitors. Meta also challenges the FTC’s narrow market definition and argues that it did not acquire Instagram and WhatsApp to neutralise rivals.

Judge James Boasberg will not issue a verdict immediately. The defence is expected to take several more weeks. Once both sides conclude, Boasberg will deliberate, likely issuing a decision in late 2025 or early 2026. 

Whatever the outcome, the ruling is expected to have long-term implications for how regulators approach tech mergers around the world. 

Distilled 

Meta’s antitrust trial isn’t just a legal drama—it tests how competition should work in the attention economy. As Facebook evolves from a friends-and-family network into a TikTok-style entertainment feed, it redefines the original purpose of social platforms.
Whether Judge Boasberg orders a breakup or not, regulators send a clear message: no deal is too old to scrutinise, and no platform too big to challenge. What happens in this courtroom could reshape the playbook for Big Tech for years to come.