[ProAm]

Right but I didnt see anything in this acquisition that would trigger antitrust (WhatsApp only, I did see issues with Instagram). And independent messaging app that didnt have ads seems like a safe purchase from a legal standpoint. That is why I asked the OP why he was surprised it was allowed.

[akarma]

(I'm not the above commenter but also disagreed with your prior comment)

> The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted.

I understand and agree with your take now, but this sentence from your last comment seemed like a different line of thinking.

If a creator can just sell it to anyone because it's a private company, that's false and that's a different argument than the specifics of this case not triggering antitrust law.

WhatsApp being bought by Apple could have easily been construed as anticompetitive, so it wasn't just that a creator can sell a private company to anyone they want. (Also, Facebook Messenger could be a reason that Facebook's purchase of WhatsApp is anticompetitive, but neither service was as prevalent at the time).

[ProAm]

Makes sense I should have been more clear (also why I said I wasnt trying to be snarky because I could easily read my first comment as such). I think at the time this sale happened any messaging service could have been sold to any company without government stoppage. The anti competitive guidelines are as such:

    - agreements between competitors, also referred to as horizontal conduct  
  
   - monopolization, also referred to as single firm conduct 

I think this sale would still go through today as for FB still has messenger and Whatsapp as separate products and (arguably) still free. I havent thought about it Apple purchased it. I think that still may have gone through too unless they stopped the app working on Android.

[nicoburns]

I agree with you that the sale doesn't come under current anti-trust laws. My position is that there ought be broader market health protections that allow for intervention in cases such as these on the basis that the reduced competition is detrimental to society / consumers even though it doesn't constitute a monopoly and may not be intentionally anti-competitive.