Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told his staff last October that he would “go to war and fight” if the United States tried to break his empire. Now the wrestling match has begun. On Wednesday the Federal Trade Commission and a team of 48 U.S. Attorney Generals attacked Facebook with the first hopeless allegations on its own soil. With multiple internal emails, both lawsuits allege that Facebook has been defending its social media monopoly for years. “Buy or bury” attitude towards its competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp. If the FTC and state attorney general courts can be convinced that Facebook’s anti – competitive behavior has damaged the market, the default settlement company is no less likely to be removed. “It simply came to our notice then [the remedy] Includes exemptions for Instagram and WhatsApp, “the FTC said Wednesday.” The FTC is trying to break away. I think this is fully confirmed, ”said William Kovacic, a former FDC president and current law professor at George Washington University. Joel Midnick, a trusted expert at law firm Gatwalter, Vickersham & Taft, said: “They are telling the court that nothing short of truly dramatic restructuring is going to cure the anti – competitive effects here. This is an all or nothing roll of dice. ”Is recommended, but a large number of legal battles will be long overdue and this case will be difficult to prove. Both the FTC and the State Attorney General have accused Facebook of criminally violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, one of the oldest and most widespread anti-trust laws in the United States, which has numerous avenues for interpretation by the courts. In recognition of the complex and lengthy struggle, the social media company’s share price fell to less than 2 percent on Wednesday. To illustrate Facebook’s anti-competitive behavior, both cases focus on the acquisition of Facebook’s Instagram for b1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $ 19 billion in 2014 in an attempt to neutralize potential threats from complaints. The FDC has re-filed an internal email sent by Mr Zuckerberg in 2008, in which he says “buying is better than competing”. In 2012, Mr Zuckerberg wrote in an email that WhatsApp was “legally a better product for mobile messaging than our full messenger app”.[u]Unfortunately for us, I don’t think there’s any way to directly reduce their speed and growth rate. ” Both the .DC and state prosecutors-public prosecution first chased down rivals by allowing access to its data and site, and then removed access to anyone who viewed it as a threat. The state attorney general’s lawsuit lists seven applications, including Wine, Path and Circle, that Facebook disconnected from its site “without proper business fairness.” Prosecutors led by New York’s Ledia James also argued that Facebook hurt its users by forcing them to hand over more privacy than they did if it created too much competition, even when offering free services. This argument has been put forward by many academics in recent years, including Lina Khan of the Columbia Law School, who helped write a recent influential report on distrust in the field of technology to the House of Representatives’ no-confidence subcommittee. MS Khan tweeted on Wednesday: “States’ complaint also reveals a sophisticated understanding of harm. This refers to the inclusion of FB [the] By competing in privacy the market but with the removal of competitors degraded privacy [and] Received a secure monopoly. “Facebook promised to defend itself” seriously. “In previous cases where Sherman had tested the law, the courts recognized that monopolies were not illegal if they were the result of high efficiency. In a statement on Wednesday, Facebook’s general adviser Jennifer Newsday said the deals for both Instagram and WhatsApp had been destroyed by regulators at the time, and accused the government of wanting “a two-over”. “The Instagram you see today is the Facebook-built Instagram, not a purchased app. When Facebook bought Instagram, it had 2% of users today, just 13 employees, no revenue and almost no infrastructure of its own, ”he said, pointing to the fierce competition Facebook faces from Apple, Google and Twitter. , Snap, Amazon, Dictoc and Microsoft. New York State Attorney General Ledidia James argues that Facebook hurt its users © Peter Foley / Bloomberg Still, some argue that Facebook has tough protection. On the one hand it should prove that it could have achieved its success in those areas even without that acquisition, while at the same time explaining why it paid so much for both companies. “This case is a lot of interesting legal questions,” said Doug Melam, a law professor at Stanford and one of the lawyers who brought the 1998 no-confidence motion against Microsoft. “It seems to be a strong case and more important than the US case against Google.” In pushing for a secession, the FTC went further than a similar judicial case against Google in October, noting any specific solutions it was looking for. Facebook action differs in other ways from being brought against Google. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. But by focusing on mergers – especially under the Obama administration – Google is focusing on partnership agreements with other previously recognized technology companies. – The FTC has to prove a complicated case, arguing that Facebook cannot achieve its market power in photo sharing and reporting without buying Instagram and WhatsApp.A breakdown would argue that it would disrupt Facebook services for users, further affecting U.S. competitiveness. “If policymakers want to reverse pre-decisions and call a thorn in the side of this game, companies and investors will lose faith in regulators,” said Robert Atkinson, chairman of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. A non-discriminatory thinking tank. The daily newsletter #techFT brings you news, feedback and analysis on major companies, technologies and issues to move these sectors faster from experts around the world. Click here to get #tekFT in your inbox. However, Mr Kovacic, a former FDC chairman, said the Biden administration could feel further pressure to pursue the case “seriously” as a way to rebuild its reputation after Big Tech grew so powerful during the Obama era. . “Retreat [seeking a divestiture] This is an obvious betrayal of the apparent purpose of the case. . . If you are considered backward, you get on your knees and lose your corporate legitimacy, ”he said. “The possibility of separation is real and possible.”