Have you ever wondered if Meta intentionally paused its efforts to diminish TikTok’s influence in the U.S. to fortify its own position against the FTC’s antitrust case? This intriguing question raises significant implications regarding corporate strategies and competitive dynamics in the social media landscape.

At one point, Meta actively contributed to the narrative surrounding concerns about TikTok as the Chinese-owned platform gained momentum and popularity in the United States, highlighting its potential impact on user privacy and content regulation.

In 2019, a significant meeting occurred when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg dined privately with then-President Donald Trump. During this dinner, they discussed various topics, including the perceived threat from Chinese social media platforms like TikTok.

At that time, TikTok was rapidly increasing its user base, and Zuckerberg expressed his concerns about the platform during multiple interviews. He emphasized issues like censorship and the restriction of information flow, allegedly influenced by the Chinese government.

In his notable address at Georgetown University in October 2019, Zuckerberg stated:

“While our platforms, such as WhatsApp, are utilized by activists and protesters across the globe due to their robust encryption and privacy safeguards, TikTok, the rapidly expanding Chinese app, censors any mention of these protests, even within the United States. Is this the type of internet we aspire to?”

Following this, Zuckerberg met with Trump and several U.S. senators in October 2019. Shortly thereafter, in November, the U.S. government initiated a national security review targeting TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, particularly focusing on its acquisition of Musical.ly, which evolved into TikTok.

The subsequent year, amidst the challenges posed by the COVID pandemic, Trump advocated for a complete divestiture of the app to an American owner to mitigate potential security threats.

This initiative was ultimately abandoned by the Biden Administration in 2021, only to be reintroduced a year later, culminating in the current legislative efforts surrounding a TikTok divestment bill.

At one point, Zuckerberg appeared to be instrumental in advocating for the U.S. government to take action against TikTok, inciting fears of Chinese Communist Party interference and direct censorship at the request of Chinese authorities.

Interestingly, in 2020, the FTC also took action against Meta, accusing the company of unlawfully maintaining its social networking monopoly through a prolonged series of anticompetitive practices, which included acquiring or mimicking various emerging competitors.

When TikTok was on the rise, Meta’s leadership was eager to advocate for its removal from the U.S. market. However, by 2020, as the FTC investigation commenced, which could potentially lead to the dismantling of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook, Meta appeared to have moderated its stance, stepping back from its previous efforts to influence U.S. senators regarding TikTok.

By this time, there was already considerable momentum concerning the broader apprehensions surrounding TikTok, which meant that Meta no longer needed to exacerbate those concerns further.

It is particularly intriguing to consider Meta’s recent defense against the FTC’s allegations, which are currently being deliberated in court this week.

According to Meta spokesperson Andy Stone, the emergence of TikTok as a legitimate competitor, which was not the case when the FTC first initiated its case in 2020, significantly undermines the FTC’s argument that Meta maintains a monopoly in the digital advertising sector.

While YouTube is also a player in the digital space, it was not regarded as a direct competitor to Meta back then, particularly as Meta began shifting its focus towards video content. TikTok, specifically, has notably weakened the FTC’s stance, and it’s fascinating to observe how Meta is leveraging TikTok’s growth to challenge the FTC’s assertions.

Had Zuckerberg and his network of lobbyists been successful in expelling TikTok from the U.S. back in 2019, Meta would lack this particular defense, and the FTC’s case against the company would appear considerably more robust, especially concerning allegations of acquiring competitors to eliminate competition.

Prior to ByteDance acquiring Musical.ly and transforming it into TikTok, Meta had contemplated making an offer for the music-oriented app, which further supports the FTC’s position that Meta was proactively monitoring the rise of potential competitors and seeking to neutralize them through aggressive acquisitions or imitations.

This strategy mirrors Meta’s approach with Snapchat, where it effectively neutralized competition by replicating the Stories feature, indicating a plausible case that Meta utilized its market dominance to suppress competition at every available opportunity.

However, TikTok’s unprecedented rise has disrupted this strategy.

It seems a risky strategy to allow a rival to capture market share to substantiate a legal argument, but when the stakes involve the potential divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp, such a gamble may be warranted.

Ultimately, Meta could not have predicted that TikTok would achieve such immense success, and it bears no responsibility for TikTok’s powerful algorithm, which has rendered the platform remarkably addictive.

Nevertheless, it appears that Meta may have chosen to step back slightly, potentially allowing a competitor to gain ground, thereby weakening the FTC’s case against it.

The legal proceedings are currently in progress in the Federal Court.