Meta’s antitrust defense wraps with one big claim: WhatsApp and Instagram couldn’t be better

Meta’s antitrust defense focuses on the idea that Instagram and WhatsApp are already at their best under Meta’s ownership, rather than being hindered by it.
The company presented witnesses, including WhatsApp cofounder Brian Acton and an early Instagram infrastructure executive, to argue that Meta helped these apps grow in ways they would not have otherwise.
Instagram’s cofounder Kevin Systrom testified that Meta withheld resources to help the app grow and become safer, but Meta argues this is not true.
Meta also highlighted the potential consequences of Instagram and WhatsApp being acquired by a competitor, such as TikTok, which could lead to them becoming less useful or accessible to consumers.
The FTC’s case against Meta centers on whether the company has abused its power in acquiring and integrating these apps, but Meta’s defense suggests that they are already optimized for consumer benefit.

For five weeks, the Federal Trade Commission asked a federal judge to imagine a world where Instagram and WhatsApp flourished outside Meta’s control instead of being acquired by the tech giant. In the sixth and final week of trial, Meta asked Judge James Boasberg to consider that actually, these apps might be as good as they can get.

Meta rested its case Wednesday after a brief four days in court (many of its witnesses were also called by the FTC, so it already had the chance to question them in prior weeks). In those final days, Meta called on WhatsApp cofounder Brian Acton and an early Instagram infrastructure executive to explain how Meta helped those apps grow in ways they’d be unlikely to otherwise – countering testimony from Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom, who claimed Meta withheld resources to help the app grow and become safer, and believed Instagram would have still been a hit on its own.

Meta argues that far from becoming competitors that checked Meta’s power, Instagram and WhatsApp might have withered, remaining far less useful or accessible to consumers than they are today.

Several Meta witnesses also called out the elephant in the room: TikTok. The FTC says tha …

Read the full story at The Verge.

link

Q. What was the main focus of Meta’s antitrust defense during the trial?

A. Meta argued that Instagram and WhatsApp might not be as good as they are today if they were not acquired by Meta.

Q. How long did the Federal Trade Commission ask a federal judge to imagine a world where Instagram and WhatsApp flourished outside Meta’s control?

A. For five weeks.

Q. Who was one of the witnesses called by Meta to explain how Meta helped WhatsApp grow?

A. Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp.

Q. What claim made by Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom contradicted Meta’s argument?

A. Systrom claimed that Meta withheld resources to help Instagram grow and become safer, but still believed it would have been a hit on its own.

Q. How did Meta argue that Instagram and WhatsApp might not be as good without Meta’s control?

A. They argued that these apps might wither and remain less useful or accessible to consumers than they are today.

Q. What was another topic discussed during the trial, according to Meta witnesses?

A. TikTok.

Q. Why is TikTok mentioned in the context of the trial?

A. The FTC says that TikTok is an elephant in the room, implying that it’s a significant factor in the antitrust case against Meta.

Q. What was the outcome of Meta’s final argument during the trial?

A. Meta rested its case after four days in court.

Q. How did the Federal Trade Commission ask Judge James Boasberg to imagine a world without Meta’s control over Instagram and WhatsApp?

A. By asking him to consider how these apps might flourish outside Meta’s control instead of being acquired by the tech giant.

Q. What was the tone of Meta’s final argument during the trial?

A. Meta argued that Instagram and WhatsApp are as good as they can get, rather than competing with Meta for power.