Mark Zuckerberg Defends Instagram Acquisition in Landmark Antitrust Trial

In a major legal confrontation that could reshape the future of Big Tech, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his company’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp in an ongoing US federal antitrust trial. The case, brought forward by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), accuses Meta of monopolistic practices and of acquiring rising competitors to stifle competition.

Zuckerberg took the stand for the second consecutive day in a Washington courtroom, facing questions about Meta’s 2012 purchase of Instagram and its 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp. The social media mogul stood firm in his defense, asserting that Facebook added “value” to Instagram and helped it grow into the global platform it is today.

“Instagram integration ended up going very well,” Zuckerberg testified. “We were able to add way more value to Instagram than we would have expected.”

His remarks came in response to pointed questioning from FTC attorney Daniel Matheson, who presented internal Facebook emails from 2012. One message, penned by Facebook’s then-CFO, discussed possible motivations behind acquiring startups, including “neutralizing a competitor.” While Zuckerberg sidestepped direct comments on such strategic reasoning, he emphasized Meta’s ability to foster user growth, revenue, and innovation within its platforms.

The FTC, however, sees things differently. In opening arguments, Matheson said, “Facebook decided that competition is too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them.” The agency argues that Meta’s behavior illustrates a pattern of acquiring emerging threats before they can mature into serious competitors—a strategy exemplified by Instagram and WhatsApp.

Zuckerberg, now the world’s third-richest person, remained composed throughout the grilling, often shifting focus to Meta’s contributions to the platforms it acquired. He claimed the company’s resources, engineering talent, and infrastructure helped Instagram reach two billion active users and stated that WhatsApp saw similar growth trajectories after its $19 billion acquisition.

“When we saw Instagram succeeding, we became more confident that we could grow other social apps faster than they would grow independently,” he told the court.

The trial, which has been years in the making, was originally filed in December 2020 during the Trump administration. Zuckerberg had reportedly hoped for a more favorable political environment under Trump’s potential return, but the case has moved forward aggressively. In the backdrop of the trial, Zuckerberg had also made overtures to political power circles, including contributing to Trump’s inauguration fund and buying a $23 million mansion in Washington to be closer to Capitol Hill.

The FTC has leaned heavily on internal communications, including a particularly striking email from Zuckerberg that described Instagram’s rise as “really scary.” He also suggested that Facebook might “want to consider paying a lot of money” for the photo-sharing app to maintain dominance.

Meta’s legal team, led by attorney Mark Hansen, countered that there is nothing illegal about acquiring companies to improve and grow them. “Acquisitions to improve and grow an acquired firm are not unlawful,” Hansen said.

At the core of the case is the definition of Meta’s market. The FTC argues that Facebook and Instagram dominate a narrow market of apps for connecting with friends and family, deliberately excluding platforms like YouTube and TikTok. Meta strongly disagrees. When asked about the primary competitors to Facebook and Instagram, Zuckerberg named TikTok and YouTube, stating that video is now the main format through which people share content.

“On the video front, Meta has a lot of catching up to do,” Zuckerberg acknowledged, noting that TikTok’s explosive growth has redefined social media engagement.

The trial could result in significant consequences for Meta. If the FTC wins, Meta may be forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp—an outcome that would dramatically alter the tech landscape and challenge the foundation of Zuckerberg’s empire.

Meta has consistently argued that its services are free for users and face intense competition in a dynamic market. It maintains that acquisitions like Instagram and WhatsApp were not about eliminating rivals, but about improving user experience and fostering innovation. The FTC, however, is pushing for a legal standard that focuses on long-term market power, rather than just consumer pricing.

While the final decision may be months away, the trial is already being viewed as a defining moment in tech regulation. It signals a broader effort by US authorities to rein in Big Tech’s dominance and scrutinize past mergers more aggressively.

As proceedings continue, Zuckerberg’s testimony has offered a rare window into the strategic mindset behind Meta’s acquisitions. Whether the court views those strategies as savvy business moves or anti-competitive tactics could set a precedent for how technology mergers are treated in the future.