In what is likely to be a historic court battle, Meta Platforms Inc.—previously Facebook—is set to undergo a landmark antitrust trial in a Washington federal court this week. The U.S. government has charged the tech giant with illegally using its market power to drive out upstart competitors by buying Instagram and WhatsApp, two of the most popular apps in the world.

This case, filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is being watched closely not just for its possible effect on Meta but also as a bellwether for wider antitrust enforcement against Big Tech. The case represents a turning point in the government’s effort to curb the influence of tech conglomerates that many believe have become too powerful over public conversation, digital advertising, and personal data.

The Government’s Case Against Meta
According to the FTC, Meta’s acquisition of Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion were strategic acquisitions to eliminate competitive threats. Both companies, when acquired, were small but fast-growing social media and messaging services with the potential to become Facebook’s rivals.

The FTC argues that Meta, led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, followed a “buy or bury” strategy—attempting to buy out any platform that seriously threatened its monopoly on personal social networking. Internal company communications uncovered during the investigation, including emails from Zuckerberg himself, indicate the company considered these acquisitions a means to gain long-term dominance over the market.

Regulators contend that Meta’s actions suppressed innovation, restricted consumer choice, and erected insurmountable hurdles for new competitors in the social media and messaging markets. Through owning and consolidating Instagram and WhatsApp, Meta essentially curtailed competition in what was formerly a dynamic and diverse digital environment.

Meta’s Defense
Meta, for its part, has strongly defended itself against the charges, saying that the mergers were within the law and approved by the regulators at the time, and ultimately to consumers’ advantage. The company states that it helped expand Instagram and WhatsApp into multinational platforms with billions of users—providing improved services, stronger features, and stronger security.

Meta’s lawyers will contend that going back on these deals years down the line will establish a hazardous precedent for the technology sector, which is based on mergers and acquisitions as an integral aspect of its innovation and growth strategy. The company further asserts that the online world is now more competitive than ever, with TikTok, Snapchat, and numerous other platforms competing to take away its market share.

Nevertheless, critics contend that Meta’s scale and dominance of several big platforms provide it with unmatched power over the online existence of billions—something that cannot be resolved by market competition alone.

Political Context and the Trump Factor
Complementing the theater of the trial is its political context. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other tech moguls had anticipated that the return of Donald Trump to office in 2025 would signal a more pro-business regulatory atmosphere. Trump’s initial term in office was marked by a gentle hand on tech regulation, notwithstanding popular criticism of Big Tech giants.

But the case’s continuation indicates that the FTC, with leadership in place now, is not abandoning its efforts to enforce antitrust laws even in a changing political environment. This implies a more lasting bipartisan agreement may be emerging on the necessity of keeping Big Tech in check.

In fact, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have increasingly expressed concerns over the influence of firms such as Meta, Google, Apple, and Amazon. Although their motivations are varied—ranging from concerns over censorship and political bias to worries about privacy and monopolization—the consequence has been an unusual moment of bipartisan agreement in a polarized political environment.

Implications for the Tech Industry
The outcome of this trial could set a powerful precedent for how mergers and acquisitions are evaluated in the tech sector moving forward. A government win could open the door to further scrutiny of past deals and even force Meta to divest some of its assets, potentially spinning off Instagram or WhatsApp as independent entities.

Such a dissolution, while painful and untested, would be viewed by some as a tremendous victory for consumers and competition. Others fear it would have unforeseen consequences, including fragmentation, increased expense, and lower functionality across platforms that are currently harmonized.

More generally, the case will inform how future acquisitions are pursued—not only by Meta but by all of the tech giants. Startups and investors might have to rethink exit strategies based on being acquired by tech giants, and those giants might have a more limited landscape in which to grow through M&A.

Conclusion
Meta’s antitrust trial is not merely a legal battle against one company—it is a turning point in the current reckoning with Big Tech’s place in society. At its essence, the case poses a basic question: Should a few corporations be permitted to control the digital public square through strategic purchases, or should the government step in to promote fair competition and innovation?

For Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, the stakes are higher. Defeat would result in a forced rebuilding of the company’s empire and a dramatic recasting of the digital landscape. For regulators, victory would reinforce their power to upend even established deals that are decades old if they serve to hurt consumers and the marketplace.

Throughout the trial, eyes will be fixed on Washington, where the decision might send waves across Silicon Valley boardrooms and beyond—well into the future.