Trump Hates EU Tech Meddling. Why Is He Letting His FTC do the Same? – The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

Many commentators are calling the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) case against Meta, which began on Monday, a “blockbuster” trial. Whilst testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and other tech honchos will undoubtedly capture the public imagination for a short while, the media buzz is far from the most important aspect of this case. Rather, the FTC case against Meta is a vital test of whether the FTC functions as intended, to protect consumers, or whether it acts as another example of ill-informed government interference.

Worse still, it appears the FTC’s motivations behind the Meta case are clouded with past political suspicions of Meta and Zuckerberg. President Trump should urge his FTC to drop this frivolous monopoly case, ensuring U.S. consumers get access to the best possible services that they are freely allowed to choose.

Writing from the U.K., this sudden interest in big-tech crusading by the government looks incredibly self-defeating. At a time when future tech industries could not be more important, I have often looked to the pro-business regulatory attitudes of the USA with jealousy. For many years, the U.K. was trapped inside the European Union’s overbearing regulatory framework. For the EU, to regulate rather than innovate is almost instinctive.

The ultimate example of this is the failing Digital Markets Act (DMA), adopted by the EU in 2022. The act, designed to make the tech market in Europe more competitive by regulating “gatekeepers” in the European market. The theory went that as so-called monopolies were broken up, consumers would have more choice from competitors to mainstream giants like Apple and Google, and therefore better quality services.

As with most grandiose acts of government intervention, the act seems to have had the opposite effect. Recent analysis by the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) showed how EU rules “often leave Europeans dependent on second-rate products.” A glaring example found in the CEPA analysis is that Apple’s much-lauded AI technology incorporated into IOS 18 will be completely unavailable in Europe, all because of the DMA.

The same misguided spirit that motivated the DMA is present in the FTC case against Meta. The FTC argues that Meta has monopolised the social media market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Despite the fact that the FTC authorised these acquisitions at the time, it now argues that Instagram and WhatsApp have grown too much under Meta’s banner. (RELATED: Will Trump Fix Insidious FTC, DOJ Abuses?)

It’s not often I find myself nodding along to a corporate lawyer’s arguments, but the case presented by Meta seems open and shut. In a statement, Meta’s chief legal officer, Jennifer Newstead, said that the upcoming trial will “show what every 17-year-old in the world knows,” namely that Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp exist in a competitive ecosystem of other apps like TikTok, X, Snapchat, and others.

This is patently true, so true in fact that social media companies leech features from each other in acts of blatant competition all the time. Whether it be Instagram threads to combat X or reels to take on TikTok, Meta itself seems to be under no illusion as to the competition it faces.

How, then, will the FTC make its case? Surely it will have to rely on a clunky definition of monopoly to prove its point. In an interview with CNBC, Professor Prasad Krishnamurthy of UC Berkeley made the point that these bizarre definitions are common features of FTC cases. He said that the market definition used in antitrust cases “is often not anything remotely like how lay people or even businesses in that market will describe it.” In other words, the FTC will attempt to contort the common-sense understanding of the social media market to prosecute Meta.

This is not just poor regulating practice. A successful case from the FTC here could, like the DMA did in Europe, leave U.S. consumers relying on second-rate services. Instagram and WhatsApp have grown so substantially under Meta’s stewardship precisely because Meta has improved these services for users, as borne out by the vast increase in users since Meta acquired them.

A compulsory break-up could unintentionally foist worse services on consumers, rather than protecting them. Even worse would be the precedent a success for the FTC would set. Why should tech companies take risks in mergers and acquisitions if they can be penalized for their success years into the future? The FTC’s attempt to relitigate acquisitions it already approved is clear evidence of a regulator all at sea.

As the Meta case unfolds, Americans will no doubt hear from the FTC that their interests are at the heart of this case. In reality, though, overbearing regulatory actions like this one more often than not harm rather than help consumers.

At a defining moment in the future of the global big tech market, the U.S. should stick to its innovative reputation; the stagnant growth of the EU offers a vision of the alternative model. To protect the services that U.S. and worldwide consumers enjoy, President Trump should urge the FTC to drop this frivolous case and allow Meta to continue improving its services for everyone.

Mackenzie France is a Young Voices contributor and director of strategy at the Pinsker Centre. Follow him on X @mackenzie_fr.

READ MORE:

Will Trump Fix Insidious FTC, DOJ Abuses?

Andrew Breitbart, Mark Zuckerberg, and the Two-Way Politics-Culture Street

Trump Fumigates the DOJ