Core Viewpoint - A federal judge ruled that Google operates illegal monopolies in digital advertising technology, potentially leading to a breakup of its online business empire [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Findings - The ruling determined that Google violated the Sherman Act by dominating both the online publisher ad server market and the ad-exchange market [1]. - The judge noted that Google entrenched its monopoly power through anticompetitive practices, harming both competitors and consumers [2]. Group 2: Financial Impact - Following the ruling, shares of Google's parent company, Alphabet, fell by 1.2%, trading at $153.64 [2]. Group 3: Future Proceedings - The Justice Department is advocating for the forced sale of Google's digital advertising products, including Google Ad Manager, in the upcoming remedies phase [3]. - A second trial phase is set to begin to determine appropriate remedies for Google's monopoly [3][4].

Core Points - Google has been found to illegally dominate two markets in online advertising technology according to a federal judge, which poses significant challenges for the company in an ongoing antitrust case [1][2] - The ruling may enable prosecutors to push for a breakup of Google's advertising products, specifically suggesting that Google should divest its Google Ad Manager, which encompasses the publisher ad server and ad exchange [2] - Google faces the potential of being ordered by two different U.S. courts to sell assets or alter its business practices, with a trial scheduled in April regarding the DOJ's request for Google to sell its Chrome browser [3] Group 1 - The ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema could lead to significant changes in Google's advertising operations [2] - The U.S. Department of Justice is advocating for the sale of key advertising assets to mitigate Google's market dominance [2] - Google has previously considered divesting its ad exchange to comply with European antitrust regulations [3] Group 2 - The company is preparing for potential legal outcomes that could reshape its business model in the advertising sector [3] - The ongoing antitrust scrutiny highlights the increasing regulatory pressures faced by major tech firms in the U.S. [1][3] - The situation underscores the broader implications for the online advertising industry as regulatory bodies seek to enforce competition [1][2]

Core Argument - Mark Zuckerberg denied in court that Meta acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to eliminate competition, asserting that the purchases were based on their unique features and potential for growth [3][4][5]. Group 1: Acquisition Intent - Zuckerberg stated that Instagram was appealing for its camera and photo-sharing capabilities, but he did not see it as a direct competitor to Facebook [5]. - Regarding WhatsApp, Zuckerberg described its founders as "unambitious" and emphasized that he aimed to enhance the app's capabilities after the acquisition [5]. Group 2: Market Competition - Meta has faced increasing competition from various rivals, including Google, and has had to adapt to a rapidly evolving digital landscape [6]. - Sheryl Sandberg, former COO of Meta, highlighted that users have numerous choices for their online engagement, intensifying competition for attention [7]. Group 3: Regulatory Context - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) argues that Meta holds a dominant position in the social networking market, while Meta's defense emphasizes the significant investments made to develop Instagram and WhatsApp into leading platforms [9]. - The case was initiated in December 2020, during the final days of the Trump administration, indicating a politically charged environment surrounding the antitrust issues [9]. Group 4: Competitive Threats - Zuckerberg identified TikTok as a major competitive threat, noting that it has surpassed both Facebook and Instagram in user engagement [11]. - In response to TikTok's popularity, Meta introduced a Reels feature to compete in the short video content space [11].

Core Viewpoint - Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg suggested that Snapchat could have experienced faster growth if Meta had acquired it in 2013 for $6 billion, a claim made during the ongoing antitrust trial [1][2]. Group 1: Acquisition Attempt - Meta, previously known as Facebook, offered to buy Snapchat for $6 billion, contrary to earlier reports of $3 billion [2]. - Zuckerberg expressed that he believed Snapchat was not reaching its growth potential and that Meta could have enhanced the app's development [2]. Group 2: Antitrust Implications - The government referenced the failed acquisition to argue that Meta seeks to maintain its dominance in social media by acquiring competitors instead of competing directly [3]. - The FTC is pursuing actions to compel Meta to restructure or divest Instagram and WhatsApp, claiming that the acquisitions were made to eliminate competition and establish an illegal monopoly [3].

Core Viewpoint - Mark Zuckerberg is defending Meta against antitrust accusations regarding its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing that these purchases were aimed at enhancing user experience and growth rather than eliminating competition [3][4][10]. Group 1: Antitrust Trial Context - The trial is a significant event in the ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech, particularly under the Biden administration, which has continued the enforcement of antitrust laws initiated during the Trump administration [4][7]. - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is presenting evidence that suggests Facebook's acquisitions were motivated by a desire to neutralize competition, as indicated by emails from Zuckerberg and former CFO [4][9]. Group 2: Acquisitions and Growth - Zuckerberg testified that the integration of Instagram into Facebook was successful, leading to increased value and user growth, and expressed confidence in acquiring other social apps to accelerate their growth [5][10]. - The FTC argues that Meta's acquisition of WhatsApp followed a similar pattern of preemptively buying potential competitors, with Zuckerberg fearing that WhatsApp could evolve into a social network [10]. Group 3: Market Definition and Competition - The U.S. government claims that Facebook and Instagram dominate the social media market, while Meta contends that they face competition from platforms like TikTok and YouTube, which the government does not include in its market definition [12]. - The trial will hinge on how the FTC defines Meta's market and whether the acquisitions were lawful under U.S. law, with Meta's defense emphasizing that acquisitions aimed at improving and growing acquired firms are permissible [11][12].

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman US Court House on April 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. Social media titan Mark Zuckerberg took the stand for a second day Tuesday in a landmark US antitrust trial where his conglomerate Meta is accused of taking over Instagram and WhatsApp before they could become c ...

Japanese authorities said Tuesday they had issued a cease-and-desist order to US tech titan Google over an alleged violation of national antitrust laws. It is the first time the country has issued such an order to a global technology giant, Japanese media reported, and follows similar moves in Europe and the United States. This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: "This ...

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg attends the inauguration of Donald Trump. Meta chief and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg took the stand Monday in a landmark US antitrust trial in which his social media juggernaut stands accused of abusing its market power to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp before they could become competitors. The star ...

Core Argument - CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Meta against the FTC's claims of being an anti-competitive monopoly during the antitrust trial [1] Group 1: Testimony and Defense - Zuckerberg emphasized that Facebook's user interest has shifted from friend connections to a broader discovery of global events, indicating that the platform has evolved into a "discovery engine" [3] - The FTC's attorney argued that Facebook's core value proposition remains family and friend connections, which is crucial for establishing a monopoly claim [2][4] - Zuckerberg acknowledged concerns about Facebook's "cultural relevance" and discussed potential strategic changes, including a radical idea to reset friend connections for users [4] Group 2: Competition Landscape - Meta's legal team contended that the company competes in a much larger arena beyond just friend and family news feeds, including short-form videos and messaging services [3] - The FTC's attorney highlighted the messaging new users receive, which encourages them to connect with friends and family, reinforcing the argument of Facebook's monopoly in that segment [4]

The Meta case is being made by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the powerful US consumer protection agency, and could see the owner of Facebook forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, which have grown into global powerhouses since their buyout. The trial will be run and decided by Judge James Boasberg, who is also presiding over a high-profile case involving White House orders to deport Venezuelans using wartime law. The case against Meta was originally filed in December 2020, during the first Trump adm ...