New York and the Justice Department asked a US federal appeals court to reinstate an antitrust lawsuit filed by dozens of states against Meta*and stated that the lower court wrongly thought it was taking too long to file a lawsuit.
Remember the chronology of events. In December 2020, the attorneys general of 48 US states and territories, led by New York, filed a class-action lawsuit against Meta*, and claims that the company has monopolized the social media market from competitors through a “buy or bury” system. Almost at the same time a similar lawsuit against Meta* filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Both lawsuits allege that Meta* bought Instagram’s photo sharing app* in 2012 and messaging platform WhatsApp in 2014 to keep them from becoming competitors and that the company selectively implements its policies to deny competitors access to user data.
Judge James Boasberg, who is hearing both cases, dismissed the states’ lawsuit in June 2021, saying it had been too long since the events described to file a lawsuit. This legal process, known as laches, does not apply to the federal government (represented by the FTC), and the states have appealed, arguing that it should not apply to their lawsuit either.
New York Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood told parent company Facebook* Meta is not further harmed by the attorneys general’s lawsuit because a parallel lawsuit was filed by the Federal Trade Commission. The Justice Department joined Underwood in siding with the states and said her case should be reopened.
According to Underwood, “the anti-competitive nature of the acquisitions was not immediately apparent,” according to Meta* provided regulators with false information about what she intended to do with WhatsApp. It was not until December 2018 that the UK Parliament released Meta’s internal documents that the company was breaking the law.*related, like Facebook* deal with competitors.
meta lawyer* However, Aaron M. Panner believes that the lower court was correct in dismissing the states’ antitrust lawsuit. “These actions took place many years ago, panner said. — The current demands of the states are not relevant.“. Moreover, these transactions were “widely advertised‘, and representatives from the states could make their demands known earlier.
“It is a dynamic market with a significant number of participantsPanner added, citing TikTok, YouTube, and Snap as Meta’s biggest competitors.*. meta representative* Christopher Sgro said the company believes the lower court’s ruling should stand. “We believe that the district court’s decision to dismiss the states’ complaint is correct and that there is no reason to overturn that decision.“, – he said.
* It is included in the list of public associations and religious organizations for which the court made a final decision to liquidate or ban activities on the grounds provided for in Federal Law No. 114-FZ of July 25. 2002 “On Countering Extremist Activities”.