• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, April 8, 2024

Meta Platforms is urging judges to rule in its favor in two pending antitrust battles -- a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission, which claims Meta monopolized the “personal social networking” market by acquiring potential competitors, and a separate brought by advertisers who claim they were overcharged as a result of Meta's alleged monopoly in the “social advertising” market.

The FTC's suit, filed in December 2020, largely centers Meta's purchases of social media service Instagram (acquired for $1 billion in 2012) and messaging service WhatsApp (bought for $19 billion in 2014). The agency claims the purchases were part of an illegal “buy-or-bury scheme” that allowed the platform to maintain its dominance in the “personal social networking market.”

The FTC reviewed those deals when they were announced and allowed them to close.

Meta argued in a motion for summary judgment filed Friday that the agency has no reason to try to unwind those deals now.

“The FTC necessarily decided in 2012 and 2014 that there was insufficient evidence to proceed against either transaction,” Meta argues to U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C.

“That is powerful evidence here and has to count for something,” the company added.

The platform also argues that the FTC's definition of a “personal social networking” market is “a textbook example of a gerrymandered market” because the agency's definition would include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and MeWe, but not competitors like TikTok, YouTube, iMessage, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Additionally, Meta says there is no evidence that its acquisitions of Instagram or WhatsApp harmed consumers.

The platform is separately seeking summary judgment in an antitrust lawsuit brought by advertisers. That suit, pending in front of U.S. District Court Judge James Donato in San Francisco, was brought soon after the FTC filed its complaint against the company.

Meta argues to Donato that the advertisers haven't offered sufficient evidence regarding Meta's charges for ads.

“Advertisers’ claim that Meta exercised monopoly power by overcharging for ads fails because they present no evidence that Meta charged supracompetitive prices for ads,” Meta argues, adding that advertisers have instead argued that Meta's profits are higher than “a supposed benchmark.”

“Of course, high profits need not reflect supracompetitive prices,” the company writes. “Instead, they may reflect a firm’s lower costs, superior efficiency, or higher output.”