The legal landscape surrounding technology giant Meta, formerly known as Facebook, is poised to undergo a pivotal transformation as the company’s antitrust trial begins on the forthcoming Monday. The U.S. government is advancing a substantial antitrust case against Meta, spearheaded by none other than Mark Zuckerberg. The allegations put forth are grave, positing that Meta has engaged in “anticompetitive conduct” to construct a “social networking monopoly.” This legal confrontation could see Meta face severe repercussions if the court rules against them, potentially mandating the dissolution of their highly popular platforms, namely Instagram and WhatsApp. Such an outcome wouldn’t just be disastrous for Meta; it might serve as a warning signal to other tech giants within the industry.
Adding a layer of complexity to the trial is the potential intervention of former President Donald Trump. The administration regulating this case, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), has historically operated with a commendable level of independence, insulated from political pressures that could compromise fairness. However, during Trump’s second term, norms regarding the independence of federal agencies were significantly altered, igniting apprehensions regarding favoritism in enforcement and corruption.
Zuckerberg appears to have recognized the shifting dynamics during Trump’s administration. In a bid to secure favor, he has cultivated a cordial relationship with the former president through private dinners, public appearances, and adjustments to Meta’s platform policy. Zuckerberg openly communicated to his employees that there was now “an opportunity to have a productive partnership with the United States government,” a sentiment marking a conspicuous shift in strategy to navigate the legal quandaries the company faces.
Compounding the situation is the ongoing relationship between Zuckerberg and Trump. Recently, Zuckerberg was seen at the White House, reportedly pressuring Trump to help mitigate the FTC’s case against Meta. Notably, this controversy stirred commentary from individuals like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who criticized the pair’s apparent collusion and emphasized the importance of following the money trail in politics.
The FTC’s case against Meta traces its roots back to Trump’s first term, when commissioners appointed by him initiated a comprehensive investigation into Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. This inquiry culminated in a lawsuit filed in December 2020. Despite an initial dismissal of the case, the FTC, now under the leadership of appointees from President Joe Biden, returned with a more formidable complaint. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who will preside over the upcoming trial, has already demonstrated his nonpartisan approach, having previously ruled against Trump in another significant case.
Trump himself has publicly disparaged Judge Boasberg, characterizing him as “a Radical Left Lunatic” and calling for his impeachment. This entanglement sheds light on how personal relationships and opinions could influence the proceedings. Despite norms that stipulate traditional checks and balances, the current political climate poses extraordinary challenges that could impact the outcome of Meta’s trial.
A notable incident worth mentioning is Trump’s audacious move to fire two Democratic FTC commissioners, a choice widely deemed unconstitutional without just cause. This action has led the commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, to take legal action against their dismissal while contending that the president is misusing his authority.
With this backdrop, the question arises: Is Zuckerberg aligning himself with a friend or enemy in this political game? Instances of cooperation abound, including private dinners, and public statements affirming mutual respect, juxtaposed with Trump’s allegations of Zuckerberg plotting against him during the 2020 election. While their relationship rides a rollercoaster of public perception, Zuckerberg has made adjustments to Facebook’s policies promoting Trump’s agenda.
As crucial as these relationships are, they won’t overshadow the legal arguments that will unfold during the trial. Meta argues that it operates in a competitive market, facing significant competition from platforms like TikTok and YouTube. Their defense will cite their contributions to technological innovation, arguing that government intervention in the form of forced divestiture would ultimately undermine America’s competitive edge—particularly in the face of growing technological prowess from nations like China.
As the trial looms, Meta’s strategy continues to pivot towards aligning with sentiments favorable to Trump, while the broader implications for antitrust regulations and the future of digital platforms remain profoundly significant.