14/04/2025
In defence of Meta: why retrofitting antitrust law is the wrong remedy
—-
By Renewal News Network | COMMENTARY | 14 April 2025
—-
This week, the United States government opens a trial that could force Meta to unwind two of the most consequential tech acquisitions of the past decade (Instagram and WhatsApp). The accusation is stark: that Meta’s purchases were not strategic investments, but surgical strikes against competition.
Beneath the cloud of accusation lies a philosophical and legal paradox. If the government succeeds in forcibly severing these deals, it will not just be Meta on trial: it will be the reliability of legal process, the clarity of markets, and the foundational logic of innovation.
Rewriting the past undermines the rule of law
--
It is important to recognise that both acquisitions were reviewed and cleared by regulators at the time (Instagram in 2012, WhatsApp in 2014). The processes were not hidden, nor were they rushed. They followed the legal norms of the era.
To reverse these processes now is to endorse a dangerous form of regulatory retroactivity: that is, the past is no longer settled, and business decisions are vulnerable to revisionism years later. This undermines what legal scholars call procedural justice (the idea that what matters is not only the outcome, but that rules were followed fairly at the time).
If businesses cannot trust the permanence of regulatory approval, they will hesitate to invest, scale, or innovate. That’s not a competitive economy; it is its very antithesis.
Dominance is not proof of wrongdoing
--
Much of the government’s argument hinges on a simple narrative: Meta bought its rivals and then grew too large. But this assumes what it seeks to prove. Just because Meta dominates now does not mean its acquisitions are the cause.
This is a textbook post hoc fallacy: the confusion of correlation with causation. Meta could have grown powerful regardless (for example, through product improvement, scale, and ex*****on). Moreover, the rise of competitors like TikTok, Snapchat, and Telegram since those acquisitions suggests that the market has remained dynamic, not static.
If Meta has grown, it may be because users have chosen its platforms, in spite of the competing platforms out there.
Beware the market definition trap
--
The FTC’s case also leans heavily on a narrow definition of the “personal social networking” market. Their definition conveniently excludes platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, and Twitter/X.
This move reveals a deeper philosophical problem: defining a market by the dominance of the defendant. It is a linguistic trap that shifts with every argument. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein warned of the instability of meaning when categories are too loosely drawn (“social networking” is precisely such a category).
If the government can shape the market to fit its case, it has already won the argument by definition alone. This is dangerous.
Acquisition is not anti-competition: it can be innovation
--
The view that buying smaller companies is inherently anticompetitive ignores the reality of today’s tech economy, where acquisition is often the most viable exit strategy for startups and a key mode of scaling innovation.
Meta did not merely absorb Instagram and WhatsApp. Meta built them into global platforms with unprecedented reach, infrastructure, and functionality. That is amplification rather than suppression.
The economist Joseph Schumpeter described capitalism as a cycle of “creative destruction.” Innovation does not always emerge from scratch; it often evolves through merger, collaboration, and reinvention.
Regulating intent is a dangerous precedent
--
Much has been made of internal Meta emails in which executives spoke of "neutralising competition." But since when did brainstorming strategy become a crime?
To punish a company for considering a competitive advantage is to confuse intent with illegality. If a CEO says, “This move will keep us ahead,” is that evidence of antitrust harm, or just capitalism functioning as intended?
Laws should govern actions, not thoughts. Otherwise, we risk moving from competition law to thought crime.
The bigger picture
--
All in all, this case is not simply about Meta. It is about the tools we use to govern innovation. It's about whether we uphold legal certainty or abandon it in pursuit of political expediency. And it is about whether we are regulating tech based on rigorous reasoning or public resentment.
Competition matters. But so does logic. If we care about fairness, innovation, and the long-term health of the tech ecosystem, we must resist the temptation to reverse history simply because the present makes us uneasy.
Let us improve the rules, but let’s not rewrite the past.
