The Article Tells The Story of:
- Zuckerberg’s $450M Offer Falls Flat – Meta tried to settle the FTC’s $30B antitrust case with a lowball deal, but the agency refused to budge.
- Trump Couldn’t Save Meta – Despite building political ties and lobbying hard, Zuckerberg failed to win Trump’s backing before trial.
- Trial Starts with Fireworks – Zuckerberg faced hours of intense questioning, including on whether Instagram was bought to kill competition.
- The Stakes Keep Rising – With billions on the line and political drama unfolding, Meta’s courtroom showdown could reshape Big Tech’s future.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Lowball Offer Collides With FTC’s $30 Billion Demand
In late March, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg picked up the phone and made a bold move. He called Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with a settlement offer. Zuckerberg proposed that Meta pay $450 million to end the agency’s antitrust case, which targeted the company’s past acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The offer was small—far below the $30 billion the FTC had demanded.
People familiar with the matter said Mark Zuckerberg believed he had a political card to play. He was confident that then-President Donald Trump would back him. In recent years, Zuckerberg had built closer ties with Trump, including a $1 million donation to his inauguration and a $25 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit brought by the Trump campaign. He had even visited Trump multiple times in 2024.
Still, the FTC was not swayed. Chairman Ferguson rejected the offer, calling it inadequate. According to those involved, the agency set a minimum threshold of $18 billion for any deal and also required a consent decree to limit Meta’s future actions.
Read More About Our Article of Antitrust Showdown: Google Defends Its Search Dominance Published on December 22, 2024 SquaredTech
Meta’s Lobbying Push and Last-Minute Negotiations
As the trial approached, Meta increased its offer. The company came back with a new figure—close to $1 billion—and continued efforts to sway decision-makers. Mark Zuckerberg, joined by top Meta aides, pushed hard to avoid the court battle. His team included Meta’s global affairs officer Joel Kaplan, public policy head Kevin Martin, and outside political advisor Brian Baker.
Despite Meta’s intense lobbying, it wasn’t enough. The FTC moved forward. The trial began on a Monday morning, and Zuckerberg was called to the stand. Although reluctant to testify, he faced four hours of questioning. On the second day, he returned to face more tough questions.
One key exchange focused on Facebook’s $1 billion purchase of Instagram in 2012. An FTC lawyer asked whether the deal was intended to shut down a rival. Mark Zuckerberg replied, “I guess so, yeah. A billion dollars is very expensive.” The government used this moment to highlight its claim: Facebook bought competitors to stop competition.
Former FTC chair Lina Khan, who had led the case before Ferguson, didn’t hold back. “Mark bought his way out of competing, so I’m not surprised that he thinks he can buy his way out of law enforcement, too,” she told the press. She called Meta’s $450 million offer “delusional” and accused the company of trying to maintain a monopoly through unlawful tactics.
Meta’s spokesperson Dani Lever responded by saying the case was weak. She argued the FTC was pushing a claim no young person in America would believe—that Instagram doesn’t compete with TikTok.
The White House declined to comment, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating, “We will not comment on an ongoing trial.”
The History Behind the Case: A Decade in the Making
The FTC first sued Meta—then called Facebook—in December 2020, near the end of Trump’s first term. The agency accused Facebook of buying startups to block future threats. These included Instagram and WhatsApp, which Meta had purchased in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
A judge threw out the original case in 2021. But the FTC filed again with more detail later that year, under new chair Lina Khan. The revised suit claimed Facebook followed a clear strategy to kill competition and preserve its dominance.
Meta has long pushed back. The company argued that the FTC had approved both the Instagram and WhatsApp deals years ago. It also claimed it faces stiff competition from companies like YouTube and X (formerly Twitter).
As negotiations restarted in early 2025, Meta first offered to update some of its company policies. The FTC, however, demanded a fine much higher than anything it had imposed before—$30 billion. For reference, its largest fine to date had been $5 billion, handed down to Meta in 2019 over privacy violations.
Meta said its lower offer reflected how weak it believed the FTC’s case was.
Meta’s Political Ties and Trump’s Role
While legal teams debated, Meta turned to politics. Over the months leading up to the trial, Mark Zuckerberg and his team tried to persuade Trump’s allies to help. He visited the White House three times in 2024. Trump’s chief of staff Susie Wiles, along with other top advisers, were involved in private talks about the FTC case.
According to those familiar with the situation, Trump showed some interest in reaching a deal. He asked his aides about what a settlement might look like and seemed open to helping Meta. But those efforts faced pushback.
On April 8, just days before the trial began, Chairman Ferguson met with Trump in the Oval Office. Joining him were key figures including Gail Slater from the Justice Department’s antitrust division and Mike Davis, one of Trump’s senior antitrust advisers. The group made their case: let the trial proceed without interference.
Trump agreed. He gave his approval for the FTC to move forward with the trial. For Mark Zuckerberg, this decision marked a major blow. Despite spending years trying to align with Trump and his team, he couldn’t stop the lawsuit.
A Pricey Investment With No Results
Mark Zuckerberg’s efforts to improve Meta’s standing with Trump began after the 2020 election. That year, he and his wife donated $400 million to support election infrastructure. Critics claimed the money was used to increase voter turnout for Democrats—a charge Mark Zuckerberg denied.
In 2021, Mark Zuckerberg hired Republican strategist Brian Baker to explain to conservatives that the funds were not political. Over time, he made further efforts to win over Trump and his supporters. He praised Trump publicly, donated to his events, and relaxed content rules on Meta’s platforms to reduce criticism from the political right.
Meta also paid $25 million to settle a lawsuit from the Trump campaign over account suspensions. Despite these efforts, key voices inside Trump’s circle remained suspicious of Mark Zuckerberg’s motives.
Some Trump advisers warned that Mark Zuckerberg’s shift toward conservative causes was fake. They argued that he was trying to protect his company, not support any political ideology.
The trial’s launch shows that these warnings carried weight. Trump, faced with pressure from his legal team and antitrust officials, decided not to rescue Meta.
What the Case Means for Big Tech
The FTC’s trial against Meta could mark a turning point in how the U.S. handles big tech companies. By refusing to settle for a low-dollar offer, the agency has shown a new approach—one that demands accountability, not just payouts.
FTC Chairman Ferguson summed it up in an interview with Fox Business. He said Meta’s power, built through its past acquisitions, had grown unchecked. The agency’s goal, he added, was to stop that power from shaping future elections or stifling competition again.
“This case is about power,” Ferguson said. “The power Meta got from buying Instagram and WhatsApp. And making sure what happened in 2020 doesn’t happen again.”
As the trial unfolds, all eyes remain on Mark Zuckerberg, who now faces the risk of a legal ruling that could force changes to how Meta operates—or break it apart altogether.
Stay Updated: Tech News
