A high-profile antitrust trial in Washington is casting a spotlight on the power and practices of Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has accused Meta of illegally maintaining a monopoly in the personal social networking market—a case that could reshape the tech landscape if successful, and potentially force Meta to unwind some of its most high-profile acquisitions.

The FTC’s core allegation is that Meta, under its former name Facebook, systematically acquired rivals to neutralize competitive threats and maintain dominance. At the center of the case are the company’s $1 billion purchase of Instagram in 2012 and its $19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014. The Commission claims these moves were intended not just to strengthen Meta’s portfolio, but to eliminate up-and-coming competitors before they could challenge Facebook’s hold on the market, as detailed in the Wall Street Journal and The Verge.

Meta, for its part, argues that these deals promoted innovation and benefited consumers. CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified that the company’s intent was never to stifle competition, but to scale promising platforms. “Was the intent to stop offering or stop making Instagram good? Absolutely not,” Zuckerberg told the court, as reported by The Verge. He emphasized that Meta’s stewardship helped Instagram grow from around 30 million users at acquisition to over a billion by 2018—a claim positioned as evidence of Meta’s ability to nurture growth, not suppress it.

Central to the FTC’s argument is whether Meta’s behavior harmed competition and consumers. The agency points to internal emails and strategic discussions, some of which were revealed in court, suggesting that Meta saw Instagram and WhatsApp as burgeoning threats that could draw users—and crucial advertising dollars—away from Facebook. The FTC contends that by removing these threats through acquisition, Meta insulated itself from the market forces that drive innovation and lower costs.

The trial also exposes a rapidly changing social media landscape, where platform definitions are pivotal. Meta’s legal team argues that competition is alive and well, citing the meteoric rise of TikTok and the continuing popularity of platforms like Snapchat and MeWe. In court, Meta’s defense stressed that users—and advertisers—can easily migrate to alternatives. As Zuckerberg noted, “We’ve always had competition,” referring to Facebook’s history of facing rivals ranging from Google Plus to newer entrants like TikTok.

However, the FTC counters that Meta’s dominance lies specifically in “personal social networking” services—a market it defines more narrowly than the broader social media ecosystem. According to coverage by the Wall Street Journal, this definition is critical in determining whether Meta’s actions constitute monopolistic behavior. Meta’s lawyers argue that such a narrow framing is outdated in an era when users divide their attention across an array of apps, each with unique features and audiences.

Courtroom proceedings have also illuminated the high stakes for the broader tech industry. The FTC is seeking remedies that could include forcing Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp—an outcome that would send shockwaves through Silicon Valley. As noted by The Conference Board, the case has already set important precedents, with some FTC claims (such as those alleging the company restricted third-party developer access) previously dismissed for lack of evidence.

With testimony continuing, the outcome remains uncertain. The trial is closely watched by competitors, policymakers, and investors alike, as it could set new standards for how tech giants are regulated and how competition is defined in the digital age. As the Wall Street Journal observed, the FTC’s effort represents one of the U.S. government’s boldest challenges yet to Big Tech’s business models and acquisition strategies. The final verdict could redefine what it means to compete—and to dominate—in the ever-evolving world of social media.