Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

FTC v. Facebook, Inc.

FTC v. Facebook, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

January 11, 2022, Decided; January 11, 2022, Filed

Civil Action No. 20-3590 (JEB)

Opinion

 [*40]  MEMORANDUM OPINION

Second time lucky? The Federal Trade Commission's first antitrust suit against Facebook, Inc. stumbled out of the starting blocks, as this Court dismissed the Complaint last June. In doing so, the Court concluded that the Commission had failed to plausibly allege "that Facebook has monopoly power in the market for Personal Social Networking (PSN) services." FTC v. Facebook, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119540, 2021 WL 2643627, at *1-2 (D.D.C. June 28, 2021). Because that "defect [**2]  could conceivably be overcome by re-pleading," however, the Court left the door ajar for the agency to amend the Complaint and reinstate its suit. 560 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119540, [WL] at *1.

Eagerly accepting such invitation, the FTC has filed an Amended Complaint containing significant additions and revisions aimed at addressing the shortcomings identified in the Court's prior Opinion. The core theory of the lawsuit remains essentially unchanged. The Commission continues to allege that Facebook has long had a monopoly in the market for PSN services and that it has unlawfully maintained that monopoly via two types of actions: first, by acquiring competitors and potential competitors — most notably, Instagram and WhatsApp — that it believed were well situated to eat into its monopoly; and second, by implementing and enforcing policies that prevented interoperability between Facebook and other apps that it viewed as nascent threats. The facts alleged this time around to fortify those theories, however, are far more robust and detailed than before, particularly in regard to the contours of Defendant's alleged monopoly.

Facebook nonetheless moves to dismiss once again, contending that the FTC's latest effort is akin to rearranging [**3]  the deck chairs on the Titanic. Although the agency may well face a tall task down the road in proving its allegations, the Court believes that it has now cleared the pleading bar and may proceed to discovery. That holding flows from several conclusions. First, the FTC has now alleged enough facts to plausibly establish that Facebook exercises monopoly power in the market for PSN services. Second, it has adequately alleged that the company's dominant market share is protected by barriers to entry into that market. Third, the agency has also explained that Facebook not only possesses monopoly power, but that it has willfully maintained that power through anticompetitive conduct — specifically, the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The Court will not, however, allow the allegations surrounding Facebook's interoperability policies (also known as the Platform policies) to move forward; they founder for the same fundamental reasons as explained before: Facebook abandoned the policies in 2018, and its last alleged enforcement was even further in the past.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

581 F. Supp. 3d 34 *; 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5415 **

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

allegations, Redacted, acquisitions, networking, users, monopoly power, market share, consumers, barriers, anticompetitive, Platform, policies, competitors, monopoly, antitrust, Chair, metrics, courts, time spent, contends, recusal, relevant market, authorize, switching, views, monopolist's, quotation, effects, marks, anticompetitive conduct

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Antitrust & Trade Law, Monopolies & Monopolization, Actual Monopolization, Claims, Monopoly Power, US Department of Justice Actions, Criminal Actions, Intent, Sherman Act, Scope, Monopolization Offenses, Attempts to Monopolize, Elements, Evidence, Types of Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Inferences, Market Definition, Relevant Market, Geographic Market Definition, Product Market Definition, Price Fixing & Restraints of Trade, Per Se Rule & Rule of Reason, Sherman Act, Mergers & Acquisitions Law, Antitrust, Market Definition, Regulated Industries, Communications, Telecommunications Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, Scope, Per Se Rule Tests, Manifestly Anticompetitive Effects, Horizontal Mergers, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation, Federal Trade Commission Act, Premerger Notifications, US Federal Trade Commission, Regulated Practices, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, Remedies, Injunctions, False Advertising, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Governments, Courts, Court Personnel, Legal Ethics, Prosecutorial Conduct