Accused of illegally stifling competition by buying up rivals, Facebook is being sued by U.S. officials who want to break up what they call a monopoly.
In a battle that may take years to resolve, there are two issues at stake. The first is the future of Facebook, and the second is the ability of state and federal enforcers to hold businesses accountable. The task ahead for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and over 40 state officials is difficult and carries high stakes for Facebook and its astronomical global advertising business.
State enforcers have since pursued Meta on other fronts. In August 2026, 51 attorneys general reached a settlement with Meta worth up to $17.1 billion over its platforms’ effects on young users.
These officials must prove that Facebook stifled competition to maintain a monopoly. They must also show how it abused its dominance to hurt competitors and consumers. Speaking to CNN Business, Michael Kades of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth said that if the case succeeds, competition within the social network space would change considerably.
The last time an antitrust lawsuit succeeded in splitting a major corporation was in 1984, when AT&T, the telecommunications company, was broken up and its regional local telephone companies were spun off.
Allegations Against Facebook
In its lawsuit against Facebook, the FTC has made several allegations including its strategy of buying potential rivals. In 2012, Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion, allegedly to neutralize it as a competitor.
At the time, Instagram had a remarkable number of users for a company with just a few employees and no revenue. Facebook purchased Onavo the following year and followed that with the purchase of WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014.
The FTC also alleges that Facebook let outside developers onto its platform only if they agreed not to compete with it, using those apps to make itself more appealing to users while cutting off rivals.
The FTC is asking the court to bar Facebook from imposing those conditions on developers. It has also requested the breakup of Facebook.
Zuckerberg Intends to Keep His Empire Intact
Facebook is massive, with well over 2 billion monthly users, and its family of apps, including Instagram and WhatsApp, reaches even more people.
In a message to employees, Zuckerberg said he disagrees with the allegations because the company competes fairly, and Facebook has said it will fight in court to stay intact. Some observers share Zuckerberg’s view that the case will take years and end in Facebook’s favor.
U.S. officials point to internal communications among Facebook executives that they say show how the company planned to stifle competition. It is also alleged that Facebook employees celebrated after buying WhatsApp because it was “the only company which would grow into the next Facebook purely on mobile.”
However, the complainants need to also show what would have happened if Facebook had not made these acquisitions. Facebook insists there was nothing pre-ordained about the success of Instagram or WhatsApp when it purchased them, as they were very small at the time.
Another question the court may ask the FTC is why it is reversing its decision to allow Facebook to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp. A former general counsel to the U.S. Senate antitrust committee and founder of Bloom Strategic Counsel, Seth Bloom, recently spoke to The Guardian about how the FTC had investigated competition concerns and approved both deals at the time. He stressed the acquisitions are from six or eight years ago, and he believes this makes it difficult for a court to order a reversal.
The FTC has expanded its efforts into looking at past mergers, and its chairman, Joe Simons, argues that the agency is legally entitled to do so.
Is a Breakup Inevitable?
In 1911, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was used to break up Standard Oil and American Tobacco. The same act was used to break up AT&T, but experts agree the law is broad and difficult to interpret. When a court ordered the breakup of Microsoft 20 years ago, the order was reversed on appeal.
If the courts find that Facebook acted illegally, they may not necessarily decide that Facebook must divest its assets. Also, a forced divestment does not necessarily mean a clean break of companies like WhatsApp and Instagram from Facebook. The FTC has also asked the court to require Facebook to provide support services to these companies so they could survive independently. Critics say that could defeat the purpose of a breakup by leaving Facebook with continued influence over them.
Finally, a breakup would likely change the user interfaces and underlying technology of these platforms, affecting their users.
