Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg firmly rejected allegations that the tech giant acquired emerging competitors to neutralize them, asserting during recent testimony that such business decisions were aimed at innovation and better serving users—not market dominance.

The denial comes amid an ongoing federal antitrust lawsuit, in which the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accuses Meta of strategically buying up fast-growing platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp to suppress competition and maintain its dominance in the social media landscape.

Zuckerberg, appearing composed during questioning, argued that the acquisitions were made to complement Meta’s existing services, not to stifle innovation. “Our goal has always been to create better products and experiences,” he told regulators and lawmakers. “Acquiring companies like Instagram helped us accelerate product development and give users more choice—not less.”

Strategic Growth or Market Power Play?

The FTC’s lawsuit highlights internal communications from Meta executives allegedly expressing concern over the competitive threat posed by Instagram prior to its $1 billion acquisition in 2012. Critics argue this was less a partnership and more a pre-emptive strike against a rising rival.

Zuckerberg dismissed that narrative, pointing instead to how Meta invested heavily in scaling Instagram and integrating it into its wider ecosystem. “Instagram was a small startup when we acquired it,” he noted. “We helped it grow into a global platform reaching billions. That doesn’t align with the idea of killing competition.”

Similarly, the acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion has drawn scrutiny. Prosecutors argue the move was part of a deliberate plan to dominate messaging services, especially in emerging markets. Meta insists the goal was to enhance its messaging capabilities and offer a broader, more private communication platform.

Lawmakers Unconvinced

Some lawmakers remain skeptical. Senator Maria DeLuca (D-CA), a member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, suggested that Meta’s track record reveals a pattern. “The evidence indicates a clear strategy: acquire, absorb, dominate,” she said in a press briefing following the hearing. “This isn’t innovation—it’s consolidation.”

Others are calling for stronger regulation to prevent large tech firms from swallowing potential competitors before they can fully mature.

Wider Implications for Tech Mergers

The outcome of the case could significantly impact how future tech mergers are evaluated. If the courts side with the FTC, it could set a precedent that makes it far more difficult for tech giants to acquire startups without facing intense scrutiny.

Meta’s legal team, however, insists that retrospective regulation sets a dangerous precedent. “We cannot penalize success or punish companies for making strategic decisions a decade ago based on today’s competitive landscape,” said Meta's general counsel, Jennifer Newstead.

What’s Next?

The trial continues next week, with additional Meta executives expected to testify. Analysts believe the case could stretch into the second half of the year and may reach the Supreme Court if appealed.

For now, Zuckerberg’s message is clear: Meta didn’t buy rivals to bury them—it bought them to build something bigger.