## Facts

- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Facebook, Inc. (later Meta Platforms, Inc.) under § 2 of the Sherman Act, invoking § 5 of the FTC Act to seek equitable relief.
- The FTC alleged Facebook monopolized a market for “personal social networking services” (PSN services) and unlawfully maintained that monopoly.
- The FTC’s theory focused on (1) Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram (2012) and WhatsApp (2014) and (2) platform policies restricting access to Facebook’s APIs and interoperability to impede potential rivals.
- The FTC sought injunctive relief, including potential divestiture or restructuring and forward-looking conduct restrictions.
- Facebook moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint failed to plausibly plead a relevant market and monopoly power and that challenges to the prior acquisitions were untimely.
- The district court decided the motion at the pleading stage, applying plausibility standards under Twombly/Iqbal.

## Issues

1. Whether the FTC plausibly alleged Facebook possessed monopoly power in a properly defined relevant market for PSN services.
2. Whether the FTC’s requested injunctive relief aimed at unwinding the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions was categorically barred as untimely (including by laches).
3. Whether the FTC plausibly alleged exclusionary conduct supporting a § 2 unlawful-maintenance claim, assuming monopoly power were adequately pleaded.

## Decision

- The court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
- The court held the FTC did not plead sufficient facts to plausibly establish monopoly power, a necessary element of all asserted § 2 claims.
- The court concluded the complaint’s “60%+” market-share allegation was too conclusory because it did not explain the metric or method used to calculate share in a zero-price, feature-variable digital-services market.
- The court did not hold that the alleged platform restrictions were lawful; instead, the failure to plausibly plead monopoly power prevented the claims from proceeding.
- The court rejected a categorical timeliness bar to the FTC’s pursuit of equitable relief to unwind the acquisitions, though the complaint was dismissed on other grounds.
- The court allowed the FTC an opportunity to replead because the defects could conceivably be cured with additional factual allegations.

## Legal Principles

- A § 2 monopolization or monopoly-maintenance claim must plausibly plead monopoly power in a relevant market; inadequate allegations on that element require dismissal at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
- Under Twombly/Iqbal, conclusory assertions of market share and dominance are insufficient where the complaint provides no factual basis for how share was measured, particularly in zero-price platform markets with uncertain product boundaries.
- At the pleading stage, a court may treat market definition as potentially plausible yet still dismiss where monopoly power is not supported by nonconclusory factual allegations (e.g., share measurement, durability, and competitive constraints).
- Equitable challenges by a federal enforcer to consummated acquisitions are not categorically barred solely due to passage of time; laches is not typically applied as a bright-line defense against the government enforcing public rights.

## Conclusion

The district court dismissed the FTC’s initial antitrust complaint because it did not plausibly allege Facebook’s monopoly power in the asserted PSN-services market, faulting the complaint’s unexplained “60%+” share claim as conclusory in a zero-price platform context, while permitting the FTC to amend and replead.


Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Facebook, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2021)