Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook United States

FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization (ftc.gov) 122

The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. FTC: Following a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy -- including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers -- to eliminate threats to its monopoly. This course of conduct harms competition, leaves consumers with few choices for personal social networking, and deprives advertisers of the benefits of competition. The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions. "Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans," said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "Facebook's actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook's anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

Comments Filter:
  • by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @02:57PM (#60812926)
    How long it took the FTC to finally take action. For Odin's sake, this has been widely known for years.
    • Re:It amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @03:01PM (#60812952)
      Isn't the really funny part that the FTC approved both acquisitions? :)
      • Ironic!
      • Isn't the really funny part that the FTC approved both acquisitions? :)

        Funny strange, not really... funny ha-ha, maybe a little, given the target.

        Corporations such as Facebook are, as evidenced by their generous political contributions to both sides of the aisle, acutely aware that political will and landscapes change like the wind.

        It's entirely possible the outgoing administration may be taking a dim view of social media giants right this very minute.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )

          It's entirely possible the outgoing administration may be taking a dim view of social media giants right this very minute.

          Yes, but they are not alone and it is a very bipartisan opinion when 46 of 50 states join in.

          • Both parties think that Facebook hurts them in elections more than it helps. Campaign contributions can't salvage that problem.

      • by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Isn't the really funny part that the FTC approved both acquisitions? :)

        With an assurance from Facebook they would not act in an anticompetitive manner. So what is the FTC to do if they ultimately do act in an anticompetitive manner? Perhaps change their opinion as the data changes?

        • Exactly right*. Facebook have abused and/or broken the agreement made when the acquisitions happened, so they're being sued for that abuse.

          *(Except for pedantry that a datum changes, but data change.)

        • by Luthair ( 847766 )
          They allowed them to buy a potential competitor, that is inherently anticompetitive.
      • not really, there was nothing wrong with the acquisitions themselves, IF facebook had behaved appropriately since the acquisitions this would not be an issue.
    • this is a shot across the bow related to the efforts to eliminate Section 230. This is the federal government telling social media companies "We're taking back control of the Internet and communications in general".

      If they cared about anti-trust in as much as it applies to consumers the T-Mobile/Sprint merger would have been blocked along with dozens of billion dollar mergers in the financial world that didn't make /. because they're not techy.

      TL;DR: The FTC does not enforce ant-trust laws and hasn't
  • Monopoly Schmonopoly. There ARE other social networks. Myspace still exists!

  • just paraphrasing an old thing

  • OK, Facebook sucks...yeah, I don't like them either, but I don't get the FTC's argument here. I see a complaint that they bought competitors and am having a hard time figuring out how they acted anti-competitively. Being a monopoly is not illegal, crushing competitors is.

    What competitors did they crush? They bought instagram, but I always view Instagram as more of a crippled competitor to Flickr than Facebook. Google+, a direct competitor, failed without Facebook's help. Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, an
  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @03:26PM (#60813104) Homepage

    That is the real sneaky bastard monopoly play. When dating apps require facebook login that is facebook owning the dating app without buying them. They get all the info they sell which is what they want.

    • Not outlaw, regulate. There are real benefits to having centralised login services. But preventing the sharing of private information beyond that immediately necessary for the login should definitely be outlawed.

    • Those sites, such as dating sites, could simply not use them. Come to think, I'm not sure why they do besides allowing themselves to opt out of managing passwords.

      It's not clear to me that Facebook is leveraging these companies to make use of this service. So that's really on them.

  • I've had facebook for 18 years and deleted my account today.

    Someone told me to kill myself on facebook.
    I replied who says stuff like that to strangers? You sound like a POS.

    He reported me. Facebook said I was harassing him and that I'm a bully.
    I appealed. They confirmed I am a bully and my behavior is inappropriate on their platform.

    I am not allowed to stand up for myself or defend myself on facebook.
    Then I deleted my account. I suppose I will go the extra step and delete whatsapp and instagram too.
    Fuck fac

    • Sounds like there's another side of the story here about what was truly said and why that we can't be filled in on.
      It's hard to see what kind of point you have to prove here? Usually, when individuals "boycott" a service because they don't like their treatment, this only harms the individual who can't benefit from the service. Everyone else keeps moving on. Most people will read your comments above as "sounds like a bitter, angry person, who probably did something to get banned."

      None of this anecd

      • by Layth ( 1090489 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @03:59PM (#60813304)

        I didn't get banned, I got warned. And I am definitely bitter and angry but also self aware and honest

    • What took you so long?
      • by Layth ( 1090489 )

        I do standup comedy and sometimes the only way to get cancellations of events is a posting on facebook.

    • Why did they say that?
      • by Layth ( 1090489 )

        I recommended someone watch game of thrones and they said that the book was better.

        I was a brat and told them that saying "the book is better" is not an opinion its a tired ass cliche that nobody has appreciated hearing for at least 60 years.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )

          I recommended someone watch game of thrones and they said that the book was better.

          I was a brat and told them that saying "the book is better" is not an opinion its a tired ass cliche that nobody has appreciated hearing for at least 60 years.

          Fine, then you got hit by a Facebook fact checker for your false statements. ;-)

    • My Facebook account was suspended for replying various comments (on other site, that uses Facebook commenting system) with the same content, trying to stop a disinformation to spread (commenting in other site was the only reason to that account exists); after it, Facebook asked my phone number to reactivate my account: what a bad manner to collect data... My account keeps suspended since then :)
      • by Layth ( 1090489 )

        Aww you poor soul taking it upon yourself to stop the spread of misinformation.
        You might a well build a giant sandcastle by the beach tide!!

        I was considering buying an oculus quest.
        Now I am definitely never buying a product that requires a facebook account.

    • Facebook is a private platform and they can moderate it however they darn please
  • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @03:31PM (#60813150)

    Suing a company to break up / divest its purchases after you were the ones who expressly approved them is mindblowingly ballsy. I wish the FTC all the best of luck but I have my suspicions that this suit won't get very far.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I wish the FTC all the best of luck but I have my suspicions that this suit won't get very far.

      After five years, and millions of billable hours, FB will agree to not do anything bad again (double double promise promise), and pay a fine of $20B which they will earn in less than a year. And then FB will go back to their old ways.

  • by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @03:36PM (#60813184) Journal
    I hope the FTC will be going after Salesforce, too, soon. A whole shit ecosystem sold to execs who have no idea what a pile of crap powers it. And they keep buying up companies just like the FTC has accused FB of. Go FTC! Keep up the litigation. And that is NOT sarcasm.
    • For a moment there I thought you kept misspelling "Oracle" as "Salesforce"...
    • The whole Salesforce ecosystem is so bad I have a hard time believing it exists. And they keep ladling more shit onto it.

      How is an IRC knockoff worth nearly $30B I have no idea. How is it materially better than the other 3 systems that SF uses to chat.

      SF must have a really good sales team to keep peddling their system.

  • ...they're still a monopoly for their primary platform style. Instead, they should be required to implement an open standard interface to interact with other providers.

  • Facebook and other social media companies bricked up the doorways that were used during the 2016 election and they got the result they wanted. So nothing it going to happen to them until there's another change of ideology in Washington.

  • by IonOtter ( 629215 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @05:03PM (#60813624) Homepage

    Maybe this will force them to remove the account requirement for the Oculus Quest? [theverge.com]

  • by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @06:24PM (#60813858) Homepage
    Are you looking the other way?
    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @05:07AM (#60815110)

      Are you looking the other way?

      Please describe your complaints with specifics. As far as I can tell in terms of monopolies on social networks and communication there is no alternative to Facebook and in my country I wouldn't be able to function without WhatsApp. On the other hand I'm not sure what Microsoft has to do with my Linux PC, Google has to do with my non-Google life, and what even is a Twitter/Amazon? Is that like birds in a forest?

      I'm being slightly facetious, but Antitrust suits do not just apply to big companies. You need specific and actionable examples of anticompetitive practices which have direct examples of harm for antitrust suits to go ahead. I'm inclined to believe the best case you'd have is against Amazon, but really I highly suspect even this Facebook lawsuit will go nowhere.

  • It's interesting that this has only become an issue when they started censoring the "wrong" posts (according to politicians). If opposing politicians came up with this, it'd be derided as Socialism and an attack on the Free Market. Just a continuing confirmation of the narrow mindedness people cling to.

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...