Facebook Hit by New US Antitrust Case as FTC Seeks Do-Over

U.S. antitrust officials on Thursday refiled their monopoly lawsuit against Facebook, seeking to salvage the landmark case that a judge threw out in June. From a report: The Federal Trade Commission filed the new complaint in federal court in Washington, alleging that Facebook violated antitrust laws by buying Instagram and WhatsApp in order to eliminate them as competitors. The agency is trying to revive the case after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in June dismissed it, saying the agency failed to provide enough detail to support its claim that Facebook has a monopoly in the social-media market. Boasberg had given the FTC 30 days to fix the error and refile, and the commission won an extension until Aug. 19.

The Facebook case, first filed in December, presents an early test for FTC Chair Lina Khan, who was named head of the agency in June by President Joe Biden. Khan is a leading advocate for taking a more forceful antitrust stance against companies and is already taking steps to bolster the agency's authority. Facebook is seeking to bar Khan from participating in the case, arguing that her academic writing about the company and her work on the House antitrust panel, which investigated Facebook and other tech platforms, showed she is biased.

Instead of going after Facebook

[rsilvergun]

how about going after the companies buying up all the homes [slate.com]. At least the ones that aren't in a burned out section of the rust belt with no jobs.

Or how about speaking up about Nvidia buying the only other viable chip designer (I'm not counting Apple as that's not their core business, and they won't share their chips with other manufacturers).

Or how about the massive consolidation in farmland [landreport.com] or in hospitals [beckershos...review.com]?

Seriously, there are so many bigger fish to fry than Facebook.

Re:Instead of going after Facebook

[Gravis Zero]

Instead of going after Facebook

Here's a novel idea... why not pursue all of these?

Re:

[Tabitha 696]

Do not ignore the bull in the butcher shop: Facebook.

While old-time capitalist swine must be reined in, the larger controllers must be watched and regulated carefully for the greater good.

Because prosecutorial resources aren't unlimited

[rsilvergun]

nor is the political capital that needs to be expended against Trusts.

Re: Because prosecutorial resources aren't unlimit

[BytePusher]

We learned with Trump that political capital works the opposite way liberals think. When you have power, use power or lose power. So the correct way to think of political capital is that it is not spent when it's used, it's invested.

Re:

[Gravis Zero]

Use it or lose it. Need more manpower? Hire more people. For all the complications, it really is that simple.

One more thing

[rsilvergun]

Biden is a leader (i.e. president of the United States). If he and his administration went after large, impactful anti-trust violations it would go a long way to make people aware of it.

How many folks outside of the (relatively) media savvy /.ers know about all those examples I listed. Did you, dear reader, know them all? Did you know 85% of medical facilities in Florida are owned by 1 company (my kid will eventually have to move out of Florida so their career in medical can advance, because that compan

Re:

[Gravis Zero]

Biden could make everyone in the country instantly aware of the problem and get them interested in solving it... and he'd also be opening massive cans of worms as those (very rich) companies start bribing Congressmen to go after Biden and anyone that sides with him.

The GOP is already 100% against him. I think he would manage their attacks just fine.

Re:

[Mattcelt]

Once a company is large enough, it wisely contributes to both sides of the aisle. (This is a major part of the problem in American politics, because it is possible to contribute meaningfully enough to all parties to cover the political canvas.)

All a company needs to do to give more weight to the other side is stop giving to you.

The GOP is nothing more than the mouthpiece and funnel for money. (And the democrats exactly the same - there is NO practical difference between the parties.) So it doesn't matter if

Re:

[Gravis Zero]

How is this related to my post?

Re:

[Mattcelt]

Ah, sorry, I'll connect the dots.

The GOP is already 100% against him. I think he would manage their attacks just fine.

The GOP and democrats are rather finely balanced. Because there are only two parties, they are in a fairly stable equilibrium. So it makes no difference that the GOP are 100% against him, because that's how it works these days.

he'd also be opening massive cans of worms as those (very rich) companies start bribing Congressmen to go after Biden and anyone that sides with him.

Part of that equilibrium is that both sides receive roughly equal amounts in contributions, often from donors who can afford to meaningfully contribute to both sides and win regardless of who's in power atm.

These companies don't need to "bribe" congre

Re:

[Gravis Zero]

None of this is related to my post.

Re:

[thereddaikon]

Those are all worthy of pursuit but there's no reason the FTC should have to abandon one for another. They have more than one lawyer. They should be pursuing all of them.

It takes Political Capital to trust bust

[rsilvergun]

so that going after higher priority targets is desirable. The reason they're going after FB is that the Republicans want to go after social media in the hopes they can weaken them enough that their more extreme elements will stop getting banned. This reduces the amount of political capital Biden has to spend to do it, but it's lazy and it's risky because if Biden screws it up we'll get the worst of both worlds: No Trust Busting (which the GOP opposes) but the gov't will take control over who Facebook.

Re:

[thereddaikon]

I think if you take a minute to research the situation you will find that both parties are actually pissed off with social media companies and its not the republicans who are giving the FTC marching orders at the moment. Claiming this is some kind of republican conspiracy sounds like, well a conspiracy theory. The Biden admin has made their feelings about Facebook well known. There is no need to invent nonexistent political schemes to explain it. The visible political schemes are sufficient.
The republicans

Look deeper

[rsilvergun]

the GOP isn't angry at Facebook's anti trust violations, they're upset that they can't control Facebook & Twitter. That's not even in the same ballpark as Trust Busting.

Now, you might be thinking Joe Biden can use that anger to his advantage. I'll remind you of Citizens United, when the Democrat dominated Unions somehow thought they could outspend Wall Street and sued for and won the right to spend unlimited cash... which was promptly used to crush them at the polls when they were outspent 10 to 1 (

Re:

[StormReaver]

Seriously, there are so many bigger fish to fry than Facebook.

Very true. However, you are overlooking the reason why Web properties are being attacked by the political establishment: these companies are embarrassing politicians by showing who has the real power. None of your other examples are doing the same. If anything, the others are probably doing just the opposite: greasing the wheels of corruption that keep politicians in office.

It Twitter hadn't hurt Trump's feelings, I don't think any of this would be happening. And Congressional politicians, regardless of any

Re:

[Required Snark]

Facebook and the FTC have already interacted via the courts, so a refiling is obviously relevant. It's not clear that the FTC is the right agency to deal with some of these other problems. NVidea possibly, but for real estate the legal issues could be very different.

With Facebook it's an anti-trust case. Is there anti-trust involved with any real estate acquisitions? That issue alone could drag out in the courts forever, which would be the equivalent of doing nothing.

Predictory real estate hording stems

Not a monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly it's not a monopoly. I don't use most of this stuff, but again and again I hear people on podcasts using the term social media as a synonym for "Twitter".

Double Jeopardy-ish

[Surak_Prime]

I'm aware that Facebook isn't a person (despite certain court rulings), and I definitely sympathize with going after them again on just the specifics of this one situation - I'm not arguing on behalf of Facebook by any means. But precedent-wise, doesn't there have to be some point beyond which pursuing the same matter repeatedly after previously losing their case constitutes harassment or something?

Re:

[CrimsonAvenger]

If we're talking criminal rather than civil, the double jeopardy rules would apply. Note that you can skirt the edges of legality in double jeopardy by charging them with a different crime for the same act.

That qualifier aside, if it's a civil matter and not a criminal matter, then you can keep bringing actions against them until the Sun grows cold if you want to.

Re:

[omnichad]

There are so many actions of theirs to choose from, the FTC could go after a different one easily enough. And probably not run out for a while.

Re:Double Jeopardy-ish

[pavon]

The FTC didn't lose the case. It was dismissed without prejudice. The idea is that the if a case is dismissed early enough in the processes and for mostly procedural or technical reasons, then the defendant never actually stood trial for their charges, and double jeopardy doesn't apply. One way to look at it was that the case was deferred, and thus the main concern is the right to a speedy trial, not double jeopardy.

If a judge does think the prosecutor or plaintiff is acting in bad faith, then they can dismiss with prejudice, which does prevent refiling, to address the sort of harassment that you mention.

Re:

[thegarbz]

But precedent-wise, doesn't there have to be some point beyond which pursuing the same matter repeatedly after previously losing their case constitutes harassment or something?

They haven't lost. They will only lose the case if they don't refile in a way the judge deems acceptable within 30 days.

I mean there's plenty of other reasons why this case should get thrown out though but the courts didn't even get that far. I think the main one is the legal principles which I think are referred to as "No backsies!". It was after all the government which approved the merger.

I think I'll sue the restaurant I just ate at. I changed my mind. The burger was delicious but in retrospect I didn't