The Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of attorneys general from 48 states and territories filed two separate antitrust lawsuits against Facebook on Wednesday. The lawsuits target two of Facebook’s major acquisitions: Instagram and WhatsApp.
Both are seeking remedies for the alleged anticompetitive conduct that could result in requiring Facebook to divest the two apps.
The company’s stock was down almost 4% following the news of the lawsuits.
“This is revisionist history,” Facebook General Counsel Jennifer Newstead said in a statement. “Antitrust laws exist to protect consumers and promote innovation, not to punish successful businesses. Instagram and WhatsApp became the incredible products they are today because Facebook invested billions of dollars, and years of innovation and expertise, to develop new features and better experiences for the millions who enjoy those products. The most important fact in this case, which the Commission does not mention in its 53-page complaint, is that it cleared these acquisitions years ago. The government now wants a do-over, sending a chilling warning to American business that no sale is ever final. People and small businesses don’t choose to use Facebook’s free services and advertising because they have to, they use them because our apps and services deliver the most value. We are going to vigorously defend people’s ability to continue making that choice.”
The FTC alleges that Facebook engaged in a systematic strategy to eliminate threats to its monopoly, including the 2012 and 2014 acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. It alleges Facebook holds monopoly power in the U.S. personal social networking market.
The FTC alleges that Facebook engaged in a systematic strategy to eliminate threats to its monopoly, including the 2012 and 2014 acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which the FTC previously cleared. Facebook acquired Instagram for $1 billion and WhatsApp for $19 billion.
As part of the lawsuit, the FTC will seek a permanent injunction that could result in the divestitures of Instagram and WhatsApp, the agency said. Additionally, the FTC will seek to prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions against third-party software developers.
“Since toppling early rival Myspace and achieving monopoly power, Facebook has turned to playing defense through anticompetitive means,” the FTC states in its lawsuit. “After identifying two significant competitive threats to its dominant position — Instagram and WhatsApp — Facebook moved to squelch those threats by buying the companies, reflecting CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s view, expressed in a 2008 email, that ‘it is better to buy than compete.’”
“In lamenting that Twitter had ‘turned down [Facebook’s] offer’ to be acquired in November 2008, Mr. Zuckerberg wrote: ‘I was looking forward to the extra time that would have given us to get our product in order without having to worry about a competitor growing,’” the FTC lawsuit states.
A partially redacted portion of the FTC lawsuit states that Facebook’s main blue app has lost users and engagement to Instagram.
“Through its control of Instagram, Facebook has attempted to prevent Instagram from ‘cannibalizing’ Facebook Blue, confirming that an independent Instagram would constitute a significant threat to Facebook’s personal social networking monopoly,” the lawsuit reads.
“Facebook has kept WhatsApp cabined to providing mobile messaging services rather than allowing WhatsApp to become a competing personal social networking provider, and has limited promotion of WhatsApp in the United States,” the FTC states in another partially redacted portion of the lawsuit.
While the states and FTC cooperated during the course of their investigation, the coalition of states led by New York Attorney General Letitia James chose to file a separate lawsuit.
James said at a press conference Wednesday that while the states are “aligned substantively with the FTC” there may be stylistic differences in the lawsuits. She made clear that the states are “independent enforcers of the law.”
The coalition of states suing Facebook is much broader than that which initially joined the Department of Justice in its suit against Google. Eleven Republican state attorneys general joined the DOJ in its suit. Other states are continuing to investigate Google and could file their own charges and potentially join them with the DOJ’s complaint.
The states suing Facebook include a wide swath of backgrounds, both Democratic and Republican, and include Facebook’s home state of California.
The states’ complaint also alleges Facebooks holds monopoly power in the U.S. personal social networking market, which it illegally maintains by “deploying a buy-or-bury strategy that thwarts competition and harms both users and advertisers.”
It suggests that Facebook was “driven, in part, by fear that the company has fallen behind in important new segments and that emerging firms were ‘building networks that were competitive with’ Facebook’s and could be ‘very disruptive to’ the company’s dominance.”
They claim Facebook kept Instagram and WhatsApp running as independent brands “to fill the void, so they would not be replaced by another app with the potential to erode Facebook’s dominance.”
The states allege Facebook used exclusionary tactics on top of its acquisition strategy to identify competitive threats in such a way that “has chilled innovation, deterred investment, and forestalled competition in the markets in which it operates, and it continues to do so.”
The complaint claims Facebook began making acquisitions with the goal of squashing competition and depriving competitors of valuable services far before its deals to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. In 2009 it bought FriendFeed after Facebook Chief Product Officer Chris Cox allegedly told CEO Mark Zuckerberg it “would be a bad scene” if the company went to Twitter instead. The next year, Facebook bought Octazen after a Facebook executive suggested such a move would deprive rivals of access to its contact importing service that could help social networks grow.
The lawsuit focuses attention on the role data collection by Facebook plays in maintaining its monopoly power. The complaint describes how Facebook’s alleged monopoly power gives it “wide latitude” in creating the terms on which it can collect and use information from its users. The states allege Facebook can do as it pleases with users’ data to serve its own business interests because users’ have no alternatives to turn to even if they would prefer other data practices.
Facebook’s data collection has also allowed it to create an experience that keeps users from switching to another service, the suit alleges. Because Facebook has such detailed data on users, it is able to build a highly-customized experience that other platforms would simply not be able to. On top of that, the complaint says, the sunk cost users put into creating their profiles in the first place and the huge networks effects Facebook has from its extensive userbase prevents users from looking for alternatives.
Facebook harms consumers, advertisers and competing firms through its practices, according to the complaint. Advertisers, for example, are allegedly harmed by being granted limited transparency into the value they receive from their ads as well as brand damage resulting from “offensive content on Facebook services.”
Facebook initially lured developers to its platform in the early days of its service by opening its application programming interfaces (APIs), only to later close it when those same developers became competitive threats, the complaint alleges. That action helped spread the message that access to those APIs was conditional on “staying away from Facebook’s turf in personal social networking services,” the states claim.
James said the state lawsuit sent a message that “any efforts to stifle competition, hurt small business, reduce innovation and creativity, cut privacy protections, will be met with the full force of our offices.”