Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom has accused Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg of deliberately restricting Instagram’s growth post-acquisition, in testimony supporting the US Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ongoing antitrust case against Meta Platforms Inc.
Systrom testified in Washington on Tuesday, stating that after Meta’s $1 billion acquisition of Instagram in 2012, Zuckerberg perceived the photo-sharing app as a potential threat to Facebook and withdrew critical support.
This included denying requests for staff increases and pulling back tools that had initially aided Instagram’s growth.
Systrom said the lack of support was a factor in his 2018 departure from the company.
The FTC alleges that Meta employed a "buy or bury" strategy, acquiring or neutralizing potential rivals like Instagram and WhatsApp to maintain dominance in the social networking space.
The agency argues this practice constitutes anticompetitive conduct and could warrant the breakup of Meta’s holdings.
In court, Systrom claimed that Instagram could have succeeded independently and scaled effectively using Amazon Web Services, without Meta’s infrastructure.
He emphasised that challenges like content moderation were manageable and did not require Meta’s backing.
Meta denies the allegations, asserting that historic documents are being taken out of context. Company lawyers countered that Meta’s acquisition helped scale Instagram, which had no revenue and only 13 employees at the time of the purchase.
They also highlighted Systrom’s acknowledgment under cross-examination that Instagram’s success was not guaranteed.
The trial, seen as a landmark antitrust case, could lead to significant changes in the tech industry if the FTC prevails.
A ruling against Meta could force the company to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, reshaping the landscape of social media and big tech acquisitions.
Meta has yet to comment officially on Systrom’s latest claims. The trial continues this week.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ