- Goal addresses FTC complaints about Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions
- He says that quality and production have improved since he took over the property
- He added that the evidence of the FTC was speculative
Meta has presented a motion of judgment of rule 52 (c), claiming that the FTC has not been able to prove its case related to an antitrust demand that caused the goal acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
According to goal, no evidence of different monopoly power has been demonstrated, since the finish lines are free, monopoly indicators based on traditional prices are not applied.
The social networks giant also pointed out that the FTC could not demonstrate that it had reduced the quality or production of its services, however arguing that the user participation has grown and the quality of the application has improved since it took over.
In his early days, Instagram was a small application to share photos with limited characteristics, without poor income and infrastructure. The company proudly proclaims having massively improved the quality, scope and presents them after the acquisition of the application, with the co -founder Kevin Systrom testifying the fact that the goal had accelerated the growth of the application, allowing Instagram to “prosper”.
Meta also added that WhatsApp focused on simple messages before it was bought, without plans to add characteristics or social ads, therefore, it was not considered a competitive threat to Facebook.
In general, the evidence of the FTC has been widely criticized by goal, even with the main expert of the FTC admitting that much of the competitive damage claim was speculative.
“The FTC has no evidence that goal has a 60 percent participation of any market that includes Tiktok or YouTube together with Snapchat,” added the motion.
Meta also pointed out: “Virtually all Tiktok characteristics exist on Instagram (and Facebook), and practically all Instagram features exist in Tiktok.”
The conclusion of the social networks giant is simple: “The court must issue a trial in favor of the goal under rule 52 (c)”.
