Zuckerberg’s last-minute settlement bid fails as Meta faces FTC antitrust trial

On the witness stand this week, Zuckerberg faced four hours of questioning from FTC lawyers

Mark Zuckerberg personally offered $450 million to settle Meta’s antitrust case just weeks before trial, but the proposal was swiftly rejected by Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Andrew Ferguson, who insisted on a minimum of $18 billion and a consent decree, according to people familiar with the matter, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The trial, which began this week, centres on Meta’s controversial acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp—purchases the FTC says were intended to eliminate future competition and consolidate Facebook’s monopoly power. Zuckerberg’s offer, a fraction of what regulators demanded and far below the combined value of the two apps, came with confidence that President Trump would back him politically. Meta’s CEO had intensified lobbying efforts through recent White House visits, $1 million in donations to Trump’s inauguration, and the settlement of a long-standing $25 million lawsuit.

Still, Ferguson and a coalition of antitrust officials—including Justice Department antitrust head Gail Slater—convinced Trump to allow the trial to proceed. Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, who originally revived the case in 2021, called Zuckerberg’s settlement offer “delusional,” accusing him of trying to “buy his way out of law enforcement.”

Testimony highlights Meta’s internal debate over Instagram’s threat

On the witness stand this week, Zuckerberg faced four hours of questioning from FTC lawyers, including on a 2018 internal email in which he acknowledged concerns that Instagram’s growth could destabilize Facebook’s network. The email discussed potentially spinning off Instagram to reduce operational dependencies and retain founder Kevin Systrom. In court, Zuckerberg said he was attempting to address internal inefficiencies—not evade regulators.

The FTC has framed its case as a test of Meta’s dominance and the consequences of allowing large tech companies to buy up emerging rivals. Though the agency initially cleared both the Instagram and WhatsApp deals years ago, it now contends they were part of a strategic effort to choke off competition.

Meta’s legal team maintains the company is not a monopoly, pointing to rival platforms like TikTok and YouTube. The company’s spokesperson dismissed the FTC’s arguments as outdated, saying the trial “requires the FTC to prove something every 17-year-old in America knows is absurd—that Instagram doesn’t compete with TikTok.”

Trump administration faces competing pressures

Zuckerberg’s push for a settlement included direct lobbying of Trump and his advisers, including multiple visits to the White House this year. But top FTC and DOJ officials urged Trump not to intervene. According to people briefed on an Oval Office meeting earlier this month, Ferguson and others made their case directly to the president, who ultimately authorized the trial to go forward.

Despite Meta’s political overtures—including campaign-style outreach and changes to appease conservative critics—Trump allies remained sceptical. Some warned the president that Zuckerberg’s MAGA rebrand was insincere and primarily aimed at protecting Meta’s business interests.

In a Fox Business interview, Ferguson linked the antitrust case to Meta’s political influence, saying the company had amassed “a tremendous amount of power” that was “on full display in 2020.” He said the FTC’s lawsuit was essential to preventing a repeat of that dominance.

High stakes and uncertain outcomes

Meta had initially opened negotiations with minor policy changes, while the FTC countered with a record $30 billion demand. Though both sides later narrowed the gap—with Meta increasing its offer to nearly $1 billion—it wasn’t enough to prevent the trial.

This legal battle marks one of the most significant antitrust challenges in recent history and could ultimately result in the forced separation of Instagram and WhatsApp from Meta. The outcome will shape the future of Big Tech regulation under the Trump administration and could redefine how acquisitions in the digital economy are scrutinized moving forward.