The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officially opened its antitrust lawsuit against Meta on Monday in Washington, D.C., kicking off a high-stakes legal battle that could force the tech giant to sell Instagram and WhatsApp. This case marks one of the most significant government efforts in decades to curb the power of a major technology company and restore competition in the social media industry.

The FTC argues that Meta, formerly known as Facebook, acquired Instagram and WhatsApp not to innovate or improve its services, but to crush competition and maintain its monopoly in the social networking space. If the FTC wins, the court could order Meta to separate from both platforms, fundamentally altering the company’s business model and possibly setting a new precedent for how the U.S. handles tech monopolies.

What the FTC Is Alleging

The FTC’s case centers on two key acquisitions: Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $22 billion. According to the commission, Meta purchased these fast-growing rivals to eliminate threats to its dominance rather than compete fairly. Internal communications from CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives, including a comment that “it is better to buy than compete,” suggest a clear strategy to prevent emerging platforms from challenging Meta’s control over the market.

To prove its case, the FTC must first show that Meta holds monopoly power in what it defines as the U.S. market for “personal social networking services.” This category excludes platforms like TikTok and YouTube, which are more focused on entertainment and creator content. Instead, it focuses on platforms that offer interpersonal communication and sharing—such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Between 2012 and 2020, Meta allegedly controlled over 80% of user engagement in this market.

The agency also claims that by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, Meta harmed consumers, advertisers, and the broader tech ecosystem. It argues that users saw weaker privacy protections, advertisers faced higher prices, and innovative startups were discouraged from entering the space due to Meta’s dominance.

What the FTC Wants from the Court

The FTC’s primary goal is to force Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, allowing them to operate as independent companies again. This move, the agency argues, would restore competition, give consumers more choices, and open the door for greater innovation. The FTC may also seek to limit Meta’s ability to make similar acquisitions in the future.

If Meta loses, a second phase of the trial would be held to determine how the breakup should be carried out. That phase would include discussions on how to technically separate the platforms and whether Meta should continue sharing user data or tools with the spun-off companies. The court could appoint a trustee to manage the divestiture and ensure the companies are sold to qualified buyers.

Meta’s Defense

Meta is expected to fight the case vigorously. The company argues that the FTC has defined the market too narrowly and ignored strong competitors like TikTok and YouTube. By including those platforms, Meta insists, it clearly does not hold a monopoly.

Moreover, Meta claims that the FTC has no evidence showing actual harm to users or advertisers. On the contrary, it says both Instagram and WhatsApp became more successful after joining Meta, thanks to its investment and support. Meta argues that breaking them up now would not only be unnecessary but also disruptive to the user experience.

The company also rejects the idea that past internal discussions about stifling competition are enough to prove wrongdoing. Meta’s legal team maintains that what matters is the outcome, not the intent—and they believe today’s market is more competitive than ever.

Behind-the-Scenes Negotiations

As the trial approached, reports surfaced that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had reached out to former President Donald Trump and his team in hopes of negotiating a settlement to avoid the courtroom battle. Those efforts, however, did not result in a deal.

The lawsuit was initially filed during Trump’s first term, in the final days of his presidency, by a Republican-led FTC. Interestingly, two of the three Republican commissioners at the time voted against moving forward. Since returning to office earlier this year, Trump has reshaped the FTC’s leadership, naming Andrew Ferguson as chair and removing two Democratic commissioners—decisions now facing legal scrutiny.

Although Trump has previously criticized Meta for censoring conservative voices, recent policy shifts by the company and renewed dialogue between Zuckerberg and Trump’s advisers have sparked speculation about possible political influence on the case’s outcome. For now, the FTC remains under Republican control, with Ferguson and two other GOP commissioners overseeing the agency.

Despite the political backdrop, Democratic Commissioner Rohit Chopra, who supported the original case, has warned against settling too quickly. “This is a serious case with strong evidence,” he said, urging the trial to proceed fully rather than ending in a watered-down agreement.

If Meta Loses, What Happens Next?

Should the court rule against Meta, a second phase of the case would address how to unwind the Instagram and WhatsApp mergers. Legal experts say such breakups are rare, but not unprecedented. The FTC has pursued similar remedies in other industries, such as in the medical device sector.

The separation process would be complex. Over the years, Meta has deeply integrated the back-end systems of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, including messaging services and advertising tools. The court would need to examine how these systems work together and how difficult it would be to split them apart without harming users.

According to Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil, the court would not try to return Instagram and WhatsApp to their pre-acquisition forms. Instead, the goal would be to establish them as independent companies as they currently operate. Investors and early employees who benefited from Meta’s original purchases would not be required to give back any funds.

The judge might also look to a parallel case for guidance. Another D.C. federal judge, Amit Mehta, recently found Google guilty in a separate antitrust trial. The penalties phase of that case could begin soon and may include proposals to break up parts of Google’s business, such as its Chrome browser. Whatever Judge Mehta decides could influence how Judge James Boasberg, who is overseeing the Meta case, ultimately rules.

Who Has the Edge in This Trial?

Legal analysts view the FTC as the underdog in this case. Although the agency has presented evidence of Meta’s intentions and market share, proving that consumers and advertisers were actually harmed will be a significant challenge.

Judge Boasberg has previously expressed skepticism about the FTC’s claims, once writing that the agency’s arguments “strain the limits of existing antitrust law.” Still, by allowing the case to proceed to trial, he signaled that the FTC had made a strong enough case to warrant full examination.

The trial will likely feature testimony from several major figures, including Mark Zuckerberg, former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg, and a host of industry and legal experts. Their statements could play a critical role in shaping the outcome.

Regardless of the result, the case will have major implications. A ruling against Meta could encourage regulators to take stronger actions against other tech giants and shift how mergers and acquisitions are evaluated. On the other hand, if Meta wins, it could reinforce the status quo and make it harder for the government to challenge big tech in the future.

As the trial unfolds, all eyes will be on the courtroom in D.C., where the future of competition in the social media industry may be decided.