[huitzitziltzin]

FTC decisions are made by a majority vote of the commissioners. No more than three can be of the same party. It is unlikely this case was filed early for political reasons.

The judge notes two problems (at least!):

(1.) the FTC approved the purchase of Instagram and WhatsApp. Why does it want to change its mind?

(2.) they don’t even attempt a serious market definition. If Facebook is a monopoly, what is it monopolizing? Who else is in the market? This is an absolutely central question in any monopolization or horizontal merger case. Indeed, getting the judge to accept your theory of the market is a big part of the job.

The economics staff at the FTC is not incompetent (I know several people there), but they have a tough job in this case. If it has been up to me I would not have allowed the Instagram and WhatsApp purchases, but the FTC itself approved them!

[ummonk]

Well regarding point 1), Facebook made promises during the acquisition process that it subsequently broke.

[yalok]

were those promises made to FTC specifically?

[ummonk]

Yes, to get approval for the acquisitions, Facebook made certain promises to the FTC.

[chii]

Which were?

[danvayn]

here's the letter the FTC sent to facebook about whatsapp. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements... I have no clue about IG dealings but wouldn't be surprised if they predated monopoly concerns

[tremon]

And were those promises formalized in a contract somewhere?