IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/framed/00839.html

FTC v. Meta: The Importance of Quantitative Evidence in Antitrust

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis W. Carlton
  • John List
  • Allan Shampine
  • Hal Sider
  • Theresa Sullivan

Abstract

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") brought an antitrust lawsuit against Meta in 2021, claiming that Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp had allowed it to monopolize a relevant market for apps providing "Personal Social Network Services" and that consumers had been harmed because the acquisitions allowed Meta to increase ad loads imposed on Facebook and Instagram app users. However, the FTC's market definition was not based on quantitative evidence and its assertion of harm ignored the two-sided nature of the Meta platforms, which makes it impossible to determine whether a merger would increase ad loads based on theory alone. In contrast, Meta's economic experts used modern theoretical and quantitative tools of economic analysis to address market definition and competition issues. This paper summarizes the field experiment, natural experiments, and related quantitative analyses presented by Meta's economic experts that demonstrated the FTC's market definition excluded apps that were closer substitutes to Meta's apps than the included apps. The paper also summarizes the results of a demerger simulation that accounted for the two-sided nature of apps and was based in part on the results of the field experiment. That analysis demonstrated that the FTC's claim that the acquisitions had led to increased ad load was not supported by the data.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis W. Carlton & John List & Allan Shampine & Hal Sider & Theresa Sullivan, 2026. "FTC v. Meta: The Importance of Quantitative Evidence in Antitrust," Framed Field Experiments 00839, The Field Experiments Website.
  • Handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00839.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00839. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Franco Daniel Albino (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.