Facebook Antitrust Probes Will Target Acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram

A group of state attorneys general, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, is on track to file antitrust charges against Facebook in early December, according to a report Thursday from the Washington Post. CNET: The move comes as the US Federal Trade Commission is also reportedly finalizing its antitrust probe into the social media giant. State and federal investigators plan to bring antitrust charges against Facebook over its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, alleging that the deals "helped create an anti-competitive social networking juggernaut," according to the Post. Investigators may also reportedly argue that Facebook weaponized its vast trove of user data to help quash rivals.

My favorite Facebook competitor

[phantomfive]

Back in the late 2000s, everyone was doing social network startups the way they do AI or Bitcoin startups right now. Friendster, travel social networks, couch-surf networks, whatever. My favorite example was a Karaoke social network, where you can sing and share your songbird (raven) voice with complete strangers. I can't imagine why that didn't take off.

Welcome the land of no $hit

[RitchCraft]

You're 8 years late to the party US Federal Trade Commission.

Re:

[jfdavis668]

Yea, if you had acted quickly we could have saved MySpace.

no $hit

[spinitch]

By now most know better to trust FB. It is not free , you sell your privacy and advertising attention. But many businesses have similar business model, so use at your own peril.

Re:

[Z00L00K]

If you bring in the Oculus affair into the antitrust examination you have even more support.

Re:

[RitchCraft]

I really wanted an Oculus until the FB acquisition was announced. I simply don't want anything associated with that anti-social company or CEO.

Misdirected inquiry

[thegarbz]

It's going to be hard to consider either acquisition an antitrust issue when the regulators of multiple governments including the USA's specifically approved these acquisitions. Sadly this probe is destined to fail.

The cynic in me wonders if this is a an AG who is simply trying to look tough but is purposely looking in places they are unlikely to find anything.

Re:

[Canberra1]

The point of antitrusts is not where you start, but where you end up. You judge matters by what the situation is, now. That no one can remotely compete, is a good tell. See Andrew Carnegie’s Steel Company (now U.S. Steel), John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, and the American Tobacco Company. How or why, nobody cares. Notably no-one is saying if you go over xx% market share - you WILL be broken up. Strange how in 1911 they got it, and 100 years later, they say noooo- lets have meaningful

Re:

[thegarbz]

Notably no-one is saying if you go over xx% market share - you WILL be broken up. Strange how in 1911 they got it

Because that's a silly assertion, it wasn't used in 1911 nor is it used today. If you create something new and unique right now you naturally have 100% market share. It's an extreme example but one that shows the world is more complicated than assigning a number to a company and then clamping down on them when they exceed said number.

Antitrust is not a matter of market share and nor are monopolies illegal. The question is what you do with them.

You're right with it being about where you start, but if you wan