At US antitrust trial, Meta's Zuckerberg admits he bought Instagram because it was 'better'
Summary
Companies
Zuckerberg admits buying Instagram for superior camera technology
Acknowledgement comes in second day of Zuckerberg testimony
FTC is seeking to unwind Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp
WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) - Meta (META.O), opens new tab CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a key concession at a U.S. antitrust trial on Tuesday, saying he bought Instagram because it had a "better" camera than the one his company was trying to build for flagship app Facebook at the time.
The acknowledgement appeared to bolster allegations by U.S. antitrust enforcers that Meta had used a "buy or bury" strategy to snap up potential rivals, keep smaller competitors at bay and maintain an illegal monopoly.
It came during Zuckerberg's second day testifying at the high-stakes trial in Washington, in which the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is seeking to unwind Meta's acquisitions of prized assets Instagram and WhatsApp.
The case, filed during President Donald Trump's first term, is widely seen as a test of the new Trump administration's promises to take on Big Tech companies.
Asked by an attorney for the FTC whether he thought fast-growing Instagram could be destructive to Meta, then known as Facebook, Zuckerberg said he believed Instagram had a better camera product than Facebook was building.
"We were doing a build vs. buy analysis" while in the process of building a camera app, Zuckerberg said. "I thought that Instagram was better at that, so I thought it was better to buy them."
Zuckerberg also acknowledged that many of the company's attempts at building its own apps had failed.
"BUILDING A NEW APP IS HARD"
"Building a new app is hard and many more times than not when we have tried to build a new app it hasn't gotten a lot of traction," Zuckerberg told the court.
"We probably tried building dozens of apps over the history of the company and the majority of them don't go anywhere," he said.
Zuckerberg's testimony comes as Meta is defending itself years after the release of damning statements plucked from Facebook's own documents, like a 2008 email in which he said "it is better to buy than compete."
The company argues that his past intentions are irrelevant because the FTC has defined the social media market inaccurately and failed to account for stiff competition Meta has faced from ByteDance's TikTok, Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab YouTube and Apple's (AAPL.O), opens new tab messaging app.
The FTC accuses Meta of holding a monopoly on platforms used to share content with friends and family, where its main competitors in the United States are Snap's Snapchat (SNAP.N), opens new tab and MeWe, a tiny privacy-focused social media app launched in 2016.
Platforms where users broadcast content to strangers based on shared interests, such as X, TikTok, YouTube and Reddit (RDDT.N), opens new tab, are not interchangeable, the FTC argues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Youngsters could face two-hour social media cap per app in online safety package
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle will announce a new 'package of measures' in a major drive to stop kids wasting their childhoods doomscrolling on social media on their phones Youngsters could have their time on social media capped at two hours per app under online safety measures being considered by ministers. The package could include blocking kids from accessing social media after 10pm and during school hours. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is drawing up plans to stop kids wasting their childhoods doomscrolling on their phones. He told the Mirror his approach "will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online". Talks have focused on curfews and restrictions on accessibility to apps in a drive to tackle a spiralling screen time crisis among teens. A two-hour cap per social media app has been suggested to ministers in the talks. Under the measure, kids would be blocked from accessing social media apps, such as TikTok or Snapchat, once they have reached the limit. Officials admit this won't solve the problem completely as kids could still rack up screen time across multiple apps but believe it could be a starting point. Mr Kyle and his team have been in discussions with current and past employees of social media firms, who have suggested they'd be prepared to block kids' access at night, during school or after a certain amount of time using an app. No decision has been made on what age bracket could apply. Elsewhere, officials have also looked at raising the legal digital age of consent from 13 to 16. This is the age at which a child may give consent for their personal data to be processed by online sites. But insiders believe this is not a silver bullet, as there is little evidence of a huge impact in countries that have introduced the move. Mr Kyle is expected to make a major intervention in the coming months setting out new measures to improve kids' relationship with the online world. The Cabinet minister told the Mirror: "I have been working really hard on a package of measures that will move online safety forwards under this Labour government, and I can't wait to start talking about it when I have the opportunity in the not too distant future. "But I can say right now that my approach will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online, but also start to embrace those measures that deliver a much healthier life for children online, and that's what I want young people to have, a developmental safe and nourishing childhood online, just as we strive to for young people offline." In April, the regulator Ofcom published a new children's code instructing social media firms to tame toxic algorithms, take faster action on removing harmful content and introduce robust age verification measures. Age checks must be vigorous, with Ofcom recommending online platforms use measures including photo ID matching and facial recognition estimation to ensure below-aged kids can't create accounts on their sites. This should also mean online sites have better access to a user's age if they were asked to impose measures such as curfews on younger people. If tech giants don't stick to Ofcom's new rules from next month(JULY), they could be fined up to 10% of global revenue or, in the worst cases, have access to their platforms banned in the UK. In April, Mr Kyle celebrated the "first step" in the journey to improving kids' safety but admitted the UK's online safety laws are "lopsided" and more action is needed. He has since been taking a step back to think about how the addictive nature of phones and social media is "disrupting the childhood experience". Parents have been crying out for action to help their kids curb the amount of time spent behind their phone screens. A major report released by Ofcom last year(2024) found almost half (49%) of parents of teens aged 16-17 said they were concerned about their children's screen time. But it also found young people are similarly worried. Just over a third (35%) of eight to 17 year olds said their own screen time is too high, which rose to 44% among those aged 16 to 17. Keir Starmer has faced calls to prioritise online safety amid concerning levels of suicide, self-harm, anxiety and depression linked to social media use among teens. Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life in 2017 after viewing harmful posts online, has called for the Government to make tackling online harms its legacy. "What is needed is for the Prime Minister to champion online safety," he told The Mirror in April. "The lead has to come from Keir himself. There's never really been a Prime Minister who's championed online safety and it's time there was." A major report released by Ofcom last year(2024) found almost half (49%) of parents of teens aged 16-17 said they were concerned about their children's screen time.
BreakingNews.ie
4 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Katie Price faces wait over further bankruptcy-related proceedings
Katie Price faces a wait to see whether more of her income will go directly towards paying off money owed under her two bankruptcies. The former glamour model was declared bankrupt in November 2019 and again in March last year, and the bankruptcies have since been discharged. Advertisement However, Price, who did not attend the hearing and was not represented, still owes money as a result of the bankruptcies, and she had previously reached a voluntary agreement over her debts. On Friday, barrister Darragh Connell, representing trustees, told a specialist court in London she has not paid the £12,500 a month. Katie Price did not attend the court proceedings. Photo: Ben Whitley/PA. He asked Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Sebastian Prentis to make an income payments order, which means money would go from any salary towards Price's outstanding debt. The order relates to 10 companies. Advertisement However, the judge asked for more evidence to be provided to the court about Price's 'reasonable domestic needs'. Entertainment BBC documentary to tell story of Kim Kardashian ro... Read More Last August, a judge ruled that Price's income from social media platform TikTok be suspended as part of efforts to pay off her debts. And in February last year, a judge at a specialist bankruptcy court ordered that she must pay 40% of her monthly income from the adult entertainment website OnlyFans until February 2027. The next hearing will take place later in the year, on a date to be confirmed. Advertisement
Daily Mirror
6 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Mum of two in tears as 'TikTok addiction' sends her to prison
Katherine Greenall, 29, spent a whopping £300,000 on TikTok tokens which she went on to gift to her favourite creators after she stole it from a St Helens business A mum was left crying after her " TikTok addiction" sent her to prison. Katherine Greenall, 29, wiped away tears as she was sentenced to 28 months behind bars after stealing an estimated half-a-million pounds from her employer while she worked as an account manager for the car company. Liverpool Crown Court heard on Friday how Greenall started working for the St Helens-based New Reg Ltd as a services manager in April 2021. Greenall, of Gloucester Street in the same town, was then promoted to accounts manager in December of the following year - which gave her access to business bank accounts. Prosecutor Christopher Taylor detailed how she had been considered as a "vital part of the company's growth", "very organised and capable" and both "trusted and respected", but committed a "significant abuse of trust" in manipulating financial reports that enabled her to siphon off funds into her own accounts. An analysis of her bank statements found during 2023Greenall received a total 53 unauthorised deposits totalling £57,036 from her employer. The same period also saw a "change in her expenditure", including numerous purchases from supermarkets, food outlets, Amazon Prime and sports retailers. The mum also splashed out on family holidays and hotel bookings as well as using stolen cash to pay for a family solicitor. Greenall's criminality went on to accelerate in the early months of 2024. In January that year, she made further four deposits to the tune of £8,917, followed by 10 more in February amounting to £14,916. She went on to pocket a staggering £146,288 in 20 separate payments, which were dwarfed by another 31 transactions in April 2024, giving a £196,364 boost to her bank account. Missing sums of money started to raise suspicions among senior managers. Smaller than expected profits were raised with Greenall during an internal investigation on May 1. She pledged to investigate the matter before returning to her desk and made a "final deposit" of £20,000 into her account, citing a false family illness. Greenall would admit her criminality in another meeting on May 7 and she went on to be arrested on May 13. She claimed the deposits "started small" and that they were used to fund "household purchases." But se later admitted the money had been used to fund TikTok payments, gifting tokens to content creators on the platform. Greenall ultimately swindled a total of £443,523 from the company in 121 separate transactions. She went to spend £301,162 on TikTok tokens with the proceeds being shared between the social media platform and the content creators who got the coins between February 2024 and April 2025, Liverpoo Echo reports. Greenall had no previous convictions. Paul Becker, defending, told the court that his client "may have been suffering from a form of addiction to TikTok", but stated that she had "no formal diagnosis to such an addiction". It is believed her two children, a six-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy with severe ADHD, will be looked after by her sister, a nursery care worker, in her absence. Mr Becker said: "This is fraud on a massive scale. It started out for personal matters. It was not TikTok initially, but it is right to say that the bulk of the fraud went towards TikTok. "It started off otherwise, and it became TikTok. It was not for any sort of financial reward. It was amusement. The more she did it, the more she became addicted to being on TikTok. What she was getting out of it was entertainment. That is what she was paying for. That is where the majority of the money was going towards. "Of course, that came from her employer who is massively out of pocket. It placed the business at risk and other members of staff in jeopardy. This was an abuse of trust on a massive scale. She is thoroughly ashamed of what she has done and has come today prepared for what might be said to be the inevitable. "She did not hold back with the police. She told them chapter and verse. It is not really rational thinking, to embark on this voyage of fraud and misadventure. What started out for her own personal benefit very quickly escalated into providing monies to TikTok. "Bringing up children is not easy. This, I am sure, had an effect on her at the time of the offending. It is perhaps some sort of insight as to why somebody embarks upon this sort of fraud. "It may be said that she was just greedy and wanted a better life and that is why she did it, but one has to have a holistic view of the factors in her life. It must have worn her down. It is not to negate what is deplorable behaviour, but she did not have an easy time. She is, if nothing else, a good mum who has done her best." Greenall admitted to one count of fraud by abuse of position. Appearing in the dock, she wiped away tears while being jailed for 28 months.
