“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them.” Those were the words of FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson in the opening statement of the FTC’s antitrust case against Meta. Matheson unwittingly exposed his own argument as meritless.

To understand why, it’s important to remember that when Facebook purchased Instagram in April of 2012, it could claim just 30 million users at a time when Facebook’s users were already in the billion category. Which is a comment that FTC and Matheson are rewriting history in an attempt to make their case.

If readers are confused, consider yet again that Instagram could claim all of 30 million users when its acquisition was announced. So, while it should be said that antitrust is always and everywhere an unfortunate look backwards by government lawyers constrained by the known, it’s no wonder that the Barack Obama DOJ and FTC didn’t raise an objection to Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram. The simple truth is that Instagram was largely unknown in 2012, and as an unknown, not at all a Facebook rival or peer.

Evidence supporting the above claim can be found in the price Facebook paid for Instagram: $1 billion in cash and stock. Sorry, but such a purchase wasn’t evidence of a social media giant in Facebook buying its way out of competitive pressures, rather it was Mark Zuckerberg speculating on a future of social media that brought new meaning to opaque. In other words, if Instagram had even somewhat appeared as a future threat to Facebook or Facebook’s competition, there would have been a ferocious bidding war for Instagram that would have pushed its purchase price far, far above $1 billion.