In antitrust suits, Facebook’s biggest liability is Zuckerberg’s own words

The suits from a coalition of 48 attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission lean heavily on Zuckerberg's emails.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

The lawsuits quote Facebook's CEO extensively on the topic of acquiring potential threats.

Photo: Alessio Jacona

Mark Zuckerberg's private communications about competition have gotten him in trouble before. Back in 2012, just before Facebook went public, Business Insider published a damning trove of instant messages from the CEO's Harvard days, in which he admitted to simultaneously building what would become Facebook and working on a dating site for Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss.

"I'm going to fuck them," the now infamous message reads. "Probably in the year …*ear."

More than a decade since those messages were sent, a lot has changed for Zuckerberg. But the things he has said about would-be competitors — in this case, Instagram and WhatsApp — are, once again, coming back to bite him: probably in the year … *ear.

In two closely-aligned antitrust lawsuits filed against Facebook on Wednesday, attorneys for the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of 48 state attorneys general repeatedly return to Zuckerberg's own emails and messages to underscore their core allegations of anticompetitive behavior. These emails, most of which were sent around 2012, when Facebook was fighting to stay relevant as consumers made the switch to mobile, might not include as much colorful language as Zuckerberg used back in college. But, the attorneys bringing the cases argue, each one makes clear that the primary reason Facebook acquired WhatsApp and Instagram was to nuke the competition.

"Billions were thrown at smaller companies in an effort to get them to sell," New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the states' suit, said during a press conference Wednesday. "Facebook would try to squeeze every bit of oxygen out of the room for smaller companies that refused to be bought."

In a statement Wednesday, Facebook's general counsel, Jennifer Newstead, accused the lawyers behind the lawsuits of creating a "revisionist history," noting that the FTC reviewed and approved both transactions in the past. "Now the agency has announced that no sale will ever be final, no matter the resulting harm to consumers or the chilling effect on innovation," Newstead wrote. "This lawsuit risks sowing doubt and uncertainty about the U.S. government's own merger review process and whether acquiring businesses can actually rely on the outcomes of the legal process."

Both complaints repeatedly point to a series of emails that also came up in a recent report by the House antitrust subcommittee. They're from an early 2012 exchange between Zuckerberg and Facebook's then-chief financial officer, David Ebersman, in which the two men discuss whether Facebook should consider buying Instagram. Ebersman asks Zuckerberg whether he's trying to "1) neutralize a potential competitor? . . . 2) acquire talent?. . . 3) integrate their products with ours in order to improve our service? . . . [or] 4) other?"

Zuckerberg responds that it's "a combination of (1) and (3)," neutralizing a competitor and integrating Instagram's products. He then goes on to explain a theory of "network effects" in tech that would make it difficult for Facebook to ever overcome Instagram's lead.

"There are network effects around social products and a finite number of different social mechanics to invent. Once someone wins at a specific mechanic, it's difficult for others to supplant them without doing something different," Zuckerberg wrote. "What we're really buying is time."

In another exchange that same year, Zuckerberg mused about WhatsApp's growth, acknowledging that it is "legitimately a better product for mobile messaging than even our standalone Messenger app."

"Unfortunately for us," Zuckerberg wrote, "I don't think there's any way to directly minimize the advantage which is their momentum and growth rate."

And so, Zuckerberg's messages indicate, an acquisition became an appealing option for the same reason Instagram had been. "WhatsApp is already ahead of us in messaging in the same way Instagram was 'ahead' of us in photos," Zuckerberg wrote in an April 2012 message quoted in the FTC's complaint. "I'd pay $1b for them if we could get them."

In the end, Facebook paid $19 billion.

The broad contours of the FTC and the states' cases are unsurprising. Facebook's fears about Instagram and WhatsApp are, at this point, the subject of innumerable news articles and books. But the sheer quantity of raw material that the lawsuits compiled, particularly from Zuckerberg himself, is novel. "I think the one thing I was really excited about from these complaints is that they actually produce additional damning evidence," said Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy at Open Markets Institute. "Because they had subpoena power, they had even more documents and damning evidence that shows the anticompetitive intent."

The states' complaint pays particular attention to Facebook's treatment of third-party apps it viewed as potential threats. In one previously reported case, Zuckerberg personally approved cutting off the short-video app Vine from an API feature that allowed people to find their Facebook friends on the app. "Yup, go for it," Zuckerberg wrote to a member of his team. In another case, the complaint quotes Zuckerberg commenting in August 2013 on an app called Circle, telling other Facebook executives that Circle was "very similar to the local vision you described to me a while ago [for Facebook]." Four months later, Facebook also cut Circle off from the Find Friends feature.

"Facebook roughly cut off apps viewed as a competitive threat. Some of these companies experienced an almost overnight drop-off in user engagement and downloads and their growth stalled," James said. "They also sent a clear message to the industry. Don't step on Facebook's turf or, as one industry executive put it, 'You will face the wrath of Mark.'"

Both the FTC and the states are asking the court to require Facebook to halt these practices and possibly even undo acquisitions that the court determines to have been illegal. The case is bound to be a long, drawn-out retread of Facebook's decisions over the last decade. But it will also be an illuminating probe into the mind of one of the most powerful men in the world and how he held onto that power by undercutting his competition — from Facebook's earliest days.

Emily Birnbaum contributed reporting.


How I decided to go all-in on a federal contract — before assignment

Amanda Renteria knew Code for America could help facilitate access to expanded child tax credits. She also knew there was no guarantee her proof of concept would convince others — but tried anyway.

Code for America CEO Amanda Renteria explained how it's helped people claim the Child Tax Credit.

Photo: Code for America

Click banner image for more How I decided series

After the American Rescue Plan Act passed in March 2021, the U.S. government expanded child tax credits to provide relief for American families during the pandemic. The legislation allowed some families to nearly double their tax benefits per child, which was especially critical for low-income families, who disproportionately bore the financial brunt of the pandemic.

Keep Reading Show less
Hirsh Chitkara

Hirsh Chitkara ( @HirshChitkara) is a reporter at Protocol focused on the intersection of politics, technology and society. Before joining Protocol, he helped write a daily newsletter at Insider that covered all things Big Tech. He's based in New York and can be reached at hchitkara@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.


Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.


The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Latest Stories