The government consortium that sued Facebook Inc. for unexpected behavior led to a lot of talk on Wednesday about disabling Instagram and WhatsApp, but it was an upward legal battle that was unlikely to happen. The Federal Trade Commission and the 48 U.S. Attorney General told Facebook F.B. One of the solutions sought in the lawsuits was to force Facebook to disable Instagram and WhatsApp, two companies that bought Facebook for billions of dollars in their childhood. A few pundits have pointed out some of the weaknesses in the cases and the possibility of secession. Breaking Facebook seems like a negotiation tactic for lawyers looking for a nuclear option or a strong start to negotiations. It is highly unlikely that these lawsuits will lead to the breakdown or circulation of companies acquired many years ago. “The courts will not buy this,” said Robert W. Analyst Colin Sebastian with the name wrote in a note to clients. “Facebook has developed these services using its own technology and innovations, which are often integrated into the back-end, and include Dictoc, Snap SNAP, -1.70%, Twitter DWTR, -0.42%, Pinterest PINS, – 2.07%, Descart, Parlor, etc.” Donald Bolton, a professor of law at the University of Santa Clara who focuses on federal securities law, agreed. “The government has a tough case,” Bolton said in a phone interview. “It’s not going to be an easy thing. I had the same intelligence [the case against] Google GOOGL, -1.85% GOOG, -1.89% because people like the service, it’s free. You don’t have a situation where the price is high and it’s hard to get. This is often driven by complaints from competitors. Bolton said it would be difficult to run Facebook’s two biggest acquisitions, Instagram and WhatsApp. “There have been cases where there have been deviations from the previously purchased company, but they are separate companies, they operate as a division and are separate assets,” Bolton said. Instagram, the photo sharing app, paid $ 1 billion to Facebook in 2012, and WhatsApp, the messaging app, paid $ 19 billion to Facebook in 2014. Both apps are now integrated with Facebook and become the ultimate back-sharing software. Facebook will not cut revenue for its subsidiary assets, and Facebook has recently sought to merge them, including reporting their user growth together under the umbrella of the “family”. Bolton pointed out that the government’s time to oppose a merger is usually before it happens, because the FTC had the opportunity to do reviews before the purchase was approved. “Usually the critical areas in obtaining a company’s business are handled before the merger, as part of the pre – merger. The government says, ‘We will not approve this merger unless you get out of this insurance business,'” Bolton said. [forced] Spin-offs occur where there is almost free trade, and are rejected in cases where the acquired company and the buyer’s assets are inseparable. “Facebook acquired both companies in infancy, and over the past several years they have integrated the two into more and more important Facebook applications, while maintaining them as separate applications. But their software and user sites are now so entangled that such separation is almost impossible, and Facebook firmly believes that it will damage the core product. For more details: Read about Facebook’s deal to buy Instagram in 2012. The situation that could result from what is expected to be a long and torturous legal path is that Facebook will have to pay a hefty fine, and a future acquisition that the government wants to reconsider. The government and the AGs of the states should get Facebook stuck in court to get a verdict that compels any breakdown. Their case, at least for now, does not seem to be adequate, and Facebook does not seem to be represented by the likes of Saul Goodman. The company faces a long, expensive and difficult legal battle, but in the end, the chances of getting rid of Instagram and WhatsApp are slim. .
Source