Further, Meta argued that the FTC did not show evidence that more ads were shown to users who share friends and family content. Meta noted that it “does not benefit users by showing much advertisement that do not click on them,” so it just shows more ads to users who click on ads.
Meta also insisted that “nothing but speculation” showed that Instagram or WhatsApp would have been better or bigger in rivals if Meta had not received them.
The company claims that Instagram has died without Meta’s resources. Meta noted that Instagram co -founder Kevin Sistrom testified that her app was “coffee broken and duct tape” at which Meta made it a “spam danger” before buying it.
Instead of what Meta did with Instagram, Meta can be considered “the welfare of consumers”. “Smoking gun” emails Talking about buying Instagram from Mark Zuckerberg to bury it as “legally irrelevant”.
Rejecting them as “a few history emails”, Meta argued that “before the acquisition in 2012, Mr Zuckerberg’s attempts to legalize the mental state are meaningless.”
Meta argued, “What did Meta did,” which was a pump with resources that allowed it to “develop” – increased many new features, attract hundreds of millions and then billions of consumers, and earn money with great success. “
In the case of WhatsApp, Meta argued that no one feels that WhatsApp has no intention of axing social media when the founders testified that their purpose was to never include social features, prefer to offer a simple, clean messaging app. And Meta disagreed with any claim that Google could buy a Google WhatsApp as the basis for making Facebook rivals, and argued that “the only meta witness to learn about Google’s efforts (considered) testified that it was not worried.”