Lauren Feiner

Hemphill argues that Meta has reduced overall market output for consumers with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, because consumers believe it’s reduced the quality of the services even if they’ve added users. But “users is a real concrete metric,” where quality is harder to quantify, Boasberg says, “so why shouldn’t we be focused on that?” Hemphill concedes it’s harder to measure, but says quality is an important aspect of the overall health of the market.

Meta has argued that sharing content with friends and family has become a much smaller portion of its business, as it competes aggressively with TikTok through its Reels video product, and that’s what the judge should focus on. But Hemphill says the fact that Meta has added products to its apps doesn’t mean its earlier products no longer matter. If a monopolist has power in one market, he says, that can give it a “leg up” in adding a new product, “even if it’s not as good as the competitors’.”

Boasberg wonders how big of a difference he’d need to see in how many ads Meta serves to certain groups of users versus others in order to determine it matters in assessing its monopoly power. As a hypothetical, he asks if offering a product for a cent higher to some users would be enough to constitute price discrimination. Basically, he asks, “in quantifying the amount of discrimination that Meta is imposing, is that something that you can do such that it is meaningful?” He’s also asked, “how compelling does the evidence have to be regarding ad load?” Hemphill says there’s no magic number, but Meta’s own documents show that executives thought it would be meaningful to reduce the number of ads younger users see to increase engagement.

Carlton’s approach to measuring where users go when Facebook and Instagram aren’t available paints a disingenuous picture of how the social media market works, Hemphill argues. This is in part because MeWe — which offers the very personal social networking services the FTC says Meta has monopolized — would be very far down the list of places users diverted their time to during the outages.

Meta’s expert Professor Carlton argued last week that the court should consider which apps users turn to when Facebook and Instagram aren’t available, like during its 2021 outage. In that case and in his own experiment, users turned to TikTok and YouTube more than Snapchat, even though that’s the app included in the FTC’s market definition. Hemphill says this is a flawed argument against Meta’s monopoly power because it shows users diverted their time to apps that even its own experts would likely agree don’t “plausibly belong in the market,” like Google Chrome and Candy Crush. “This is an illustration of the problems that result when you pursue this kind of gotcha approach,” he says.

The FTC has brought back its expert economic witness Scott Hemphill to rebut arguments from Meta’s experts about the company’s alleged monopoly power. Hemphill begins his rebuttal testimony by arguing that Meta’s experts used flawed analyses that do not get at the relevant questions to determine whether the company has monopolized a market for personal social networks.

The Justice Department is investigating whether Google crafted its agreement to skirt regulatory scrutiny, Bloomberg reports. The deal brought Character.AI’s co-founders back to Google and didn’t technically involve an exchange of shares, though investors were set to receive a payout, The Verge previously reported. Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels told Bloomberg that Google is “always happy to answer any questions from regulators,” and added that Character.AI remains separate, with no ownership stake by Google.