Tag: Big Tech

What the F.T.C. Can Learn from Al Capone

F.T.C. needs broaden anti-trust laws to better insure convictions.

Al Capone

A century ago, gangster Al Capone was alleged to have been involved with prostitution, illegal gambling and murder, including the St. Valentine’s Day murder.

I say alleged, because Mr. Capone was tried but never convicted of any of the above.  In 1931 the Justice Department changed its strategy and convicted him of tax evasion.  He was given an 11-year sentence and was released early, in 1939.  His health subsequently declined and he died in 1947.

Had there not been laws on tax evasion that could land a person in jail, Mr. Capone may very well have continued his crime spree.

Failed Attempt

The New York Times reported on January 20, 2026 that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it will reopen its pursuit of anti-trust charges against Meta, parent of Facebook, regarding its acquisition of both Instagram and What’s App.

The judge in the original case, Judge James E. Boasberg, ruled that Meta did not violate anti-trust law with the two acquisitions. 

Judges should interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.  If Judge Boasberg believes that Meta did not violate anti-trust law with these acquisitions, it is important to know where in federal law he justifies his position.  The F.T.C. originally sought charges that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1927 was violated.  Meta argued that it faces competition from apps like You Tube and Tik Tok. 

There is a video on YouTube from 2010 where Mark Zuckerberg states at a company address that Facebook does not acquire companies for the company itself, but to acquire the individual or individuals behind it.  In other words, he explained this as his method of acquiring top talent.  However, as a result, the companies these people started, all tech companies, simply disappeared.  Nice way to quietly get rid of any rising competition, isn’t it? 

Analysis

If the F.T.C. is serious about revisiting this, the people there really need to look at why they lost the first time.  If they apply the same evidence, they may get a similar result, even if ruled by a different judge.  Perhaps looking at Meta’s (previously Facebook) ENTIRE acquisition history may provide additional evidence of anti-trust, monopolistic behavior.  If they feel they still have a weak case, perhaps amending federal law to provide them with a wider net would bring Meta, and possibly others, to justice. 

I Fought the Law and the … Law Lost

Federal antitrust law needs to be further defined and expanded

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 U.S. Federal Judge James Boasberg dismissed the anti-trust case against Meta, parent company of Facebook, saying there was no “monopoly” conducted on their part.  The case centered on Meta’s previous acquisitions of What’s App and Instagram and whether this violated anti-trust federal law.

Meta

In his article entitled, “The Bad Reasoning in the Meta Antitrust Ruling Isn’t Even the Worst Part,” New York Times reporter Tim Wu writes:

The government charged that Meta, then called Facebook, broke the law when it bought its competitors Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014. Judge Boasberg threw out the case by concluding that Meta lacks monopoly power now, when the relevant question should have been whether it had monopoly power at the time.

In my opinion, it comes down here for both sides is the law needs to exactly define what is a “monopoly.” 

Apparently Judge Boasberg was reading current federal law and concluded with what he read that Meta was not in violation.  He pointed out the existence of Tik Tok and You Tube as significant competition to Meta.  Wu mentions that we need to look at the marketplace over 10 years ago to accurately define monopoly in this case regarding What’s App and Instagram. 

History

A point that Wu seems to overlook, and I feel is relevant, is the number of acquisitions by Meta, not just a few.  According to Wikipedia, Meta has acquired just over 90 companies and has spent around $30 Billion to do so—that’s B as in Billion.

In addition, they have a history of acquiring small companies and then dissolving them and retaining their employees.  I have a previous post that highlights a 2010 YouTube video of Mark Zuckerberg stating this at an event.

Wu further states in his article:

“Does anyone seriously doubt that Meta is the kind of company that antitrust laws were designed to restrain?”

Well, if that’s the case, perhaps the “antitrust laws” need to be expanded.   They should include other criteria such as the number of acquisitions and specific monopolistic “behaviors”, such as acquiring firms and dissolving them and pursuing hostile takeovers. Convenient way to eliminate the competition, isn’t it? Is this not monopolistic behavior?

Does this make sense?  Why has it not been done up to now?  If this were enacted into law it could give other judges a clearer path towards determining and proving monopoly.  The definition specifics would need to be worked out.  It could also be used to fight private equity.

Budget Deficit:  How Big Tech Can Help

Make Big Tech Help Fund the Three Percent Solution

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times in a recent DealBook post recently highlighted activity by Ray Dalio.  He reports Mr. Dalio, Chief Investment Officer of Bridgewater Associates, has been making the rounds in Washington talking about the budget deficit.

RAY DALIO

Dalio has been discussing what he calls the “Three Percent Solution.”  Simply put, the goal is to reduce the deficit to Gross Domestic Product (GPR) ratio to 3%.  This can be done by 1) cutting spending, 2) raising tax revenue and 3) lowering interest rates.

Sorkin adds, “A fiscally responsible budget would ease volatility in the bond market. Any economic slowdown caused by reduced spending could be offset by lower interest rates, which is what a heavily indebted nation needs most.”

He follows by saying “All three levers need to work in tandem.”

ANALYSIS

In my opinion, the three percent solution idea makes sense.

Spending by Congress is something I cannot control, nor do I have any quick fix ways to do this.

SOLUTION

There is an idea to raise revenue: place an acquisition tax on the Big Tech firms (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook) for every company they have acquired. 

Since they have all have over 80 acquisitions each, why not tax them on it, per acquisition, and make them pay for creating this situation.  Make it an annual tax so they would pay it every year. 

Big Tech seems to be averse to paying fines, both here in the United States and in Europe.  They seem to complain more about being broken up.  Well, if federal efforts at breaking them up do not work, why not at least profit from the status quo?

It would then need to be determined how much per acquisition they would have to pay.  It could also be applied to companies in other industries such as Big Pharma.  It would be based on the number of acquisitions made at the current moment.  It could also apply to future acquisitions.  It could also be graded, such as paying a higher rate the larger number of acquisitions or the price.  The more the merrier.

Such a tax, no matter how widespread, is not a “solution” to the deficit problem.  But it would be additional source of revenue.  Yes it is a tax increase.  However, it is not an income tax increase to the average citizen. 

But what about if Big Tech threatens to raise prices to offset this tax?  Well, to paraphrase President Trump:

“Make them eat it.”

Zuckerberg May Have Meta’s Match

Meta may have tried to neutralize a potential competitor

META

The Federal Trade Commission is beginning an anti-trust suit against Meta.  This time it involves its owning What’s App and Instagram.  Their argument is a monopoly exists with owning these acquisitions, they wanted to neutralize a potential competitor, and they should be spun off.

BACKGROUND

A report on National Public Radio gives a background of the government’s case against Meta:

“The government contends that a “buy or bury” strategy propelled Meta’s acquisitions, leading Meta to gobble up competitors it viewed as threats, or to squash the rivals out of business altogether.”

It adds that an internal Meta email says they purchased Instagram to “neutralize a potential competitor” and the FTC believes this is against federal law.

The report says that Meta will summarize its argument that it is being punished for being innovative and aggressive, in other words…. successful.

According to Wikipedia, Meta/Facebook has acquired 91 companies, including What’s App and Instagram.  They have also acquired an interesting company—Onavo.  Onavo was an Israeli company in business to acquire and analyze data on a client’s competitors.  Facebook has apparently used this to track successful startups for acquisition.  The website www.onavo.com has a Facebook message that says something has gone wrong.  Facebook changed it to Facebook Israel, which promotes travel to Israel.  It has also apparently deleted numerous posts about Palestinians. 

In 2010 Facebook posted a video available on YouTube.  In it Mark Zuckerberg talks about the theory behind Facebook acquisitions.  He says that Facebook, up until then, had acquired companies not to keep the company but to acquire the talent behind it.  In other words, the owners become employees (once again) and the startup disappears.  The official line is that this is growth to them.  However, it is entirely possible to acquire good talent through direct hire, including through employee search, instead of going the acquisition route.

WHAT’S APP

According to Wikipedia What’s App was founded in 2009 by two individuals, Brian Acton and Jan Koun, previously with Yahoo! They received venture capital backing.  They sold the company to Facebook in 2014.  Acton left What’s App in 2017 over disagreements with Facebook.  Later that year he founded the competing app Signal.  Koun left the following year, also with conflicting issues with Facebook. 

ANALYSIS

FACEBOOK

There is nothing wrong with companies like Facebook/Meta with being successful.  This is Meta’s argument.  However, the end does not justify the means in this case.  Defining success through innovation – that which you started yourself from scratch – is not the same as defining it via acquisition.  And if you have acquired 91 companies, that in and of itself should warrant charges of being a monopoly.  I am not sure if people in the FTC under the Trump administration have a true anti-trust focus.  Trump supporters seem to be focused more on going after the social media apps more for suppressing freedom of speech.

SOLUTION

Breaking up the acquisitions and returning them to independent status is, IMO, a good solution.  This would return them to a position again of charting their own course. Meta will present their arguments, and some may have some weight.  It really comes down to balancing the arguments and determining which has a greater priority. 

The FTC’s argument is that Meta seeks to neutralize a potential competitor.  If judicial decisions like this fail in the courts, federal law would need to be strengthened to make the anti-trust arguments more airtight.  The law, for federal judges to agree, should be written such that it promotes what is in the best interest of the country as a whole, and not one just for individual business.