Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Meta Platforms owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads. Together, these apps connect 3.35 billion (Q4 2024) to 3.43 billion (Q1 2025) daily active users and make nearly all of their revenue from advertising.
Meta’s huge user base and heavy focus on ads have made it a target for regulators.
The debate spans multiple fronts. Federal regulators want to break up the company. States are passing new privacy laws. Congress is considering nationwide rules for social media platforms, especially their impact on children.
Meta says it has plenty of competitors and that new rules will slow down product development. Critics say the company has too much power over information, violates user privacy, and needs government oversight.
Government Sues to Break Up Meta
In April 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed the biggest antitrust case against a tech company since the government broke up AT&T in 1982. The FTC wants to force Meta to sell Instagram and WhatsApp.
The FTC’s Case Against Meta
The FTC lawsuit involves 46 states, Washington D.C., and Guam. They claim Meta illegally maintains a monopoly in “personal social networking services.” The case centers on two acquisitions: Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014.
Federal lawyers argue Meta followed what the FTC calls a “buy-or-bury” strategy. They say CEO Mark Zuckerberg identified potential competitors and bought them before they could threaten Facebook’s dominance. Internal emails show Zuckerberg worried about Instagram’s rapid growth and saw the acquisition as a way to eliminate a rival.
The government claims this hurt consumers. Without competitive pressure, Meta could increase advertising, reduce privacy protections, and offer lower quality service. Users had no choice but to accept these changes.
FTC lead attorney Daniel Matheson told the court: “Meta broke the deal. They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them.”
Meta’s Defense Strategy
Meta rejects the monopoly claims. The company argues the FTC defines the market too narrowly by focusing only on “personal social networking services.” Meta says it competes for people’s time and attention against TikTok, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Apple’s iMessage.
Meta’s lawyers argue: “The evidence will show what every 17-year-old knows: Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others.” When the market includes these competitors, Meta’s share falls below 30%.
The company also claims its acquisitions helped consumers. Meta invested heavily in engineering, infrastructure, and safety for Instagram and WhatsApp. These investments transformed small startups into global platforms that might never have succeeded otherwise.
Meta points out that the FTC reviewed and approved both acquisitions over a decade ago. Unwinding these deals now creates uncertainty for all businesses and could discourage beneficial mergers across the economy.
Legal Challenges for the FTC
The case faces legal problems no court has dealt with before. The government has never tried to break up mergers this old that regulators previously approved. The FTC has to show users would be better off if Meta had never bought Instagram and WhatsApp. That’s tough to prove.
The FTC has to imagine what would have happened if Meta never bought these companies. It’s much harder than blocking a future merger. The FTC must show what Instagram and WhatsApp would look like today as independent companies and prove this scenario would benefit consumers.
The case will likely turn on market definition. Judge James Boasberg must decide whether Meta operates in the FTC’s narrow “personal social networking” market or Meta’s broader “attention economy.” This choice will determine whether Meta appears as a monopolist or one player among many competitors.
What Happens if Meta Gets Broken Up
A court-ordered breakup would fundamentally reshape social media. The stakes are enormous for users, advertisers, and competitors.
Arguments for Breaking Up Meta
Supporters say divestiture would increase competition and benefit consumers. Independent Instagram and WhatsApp would compete against Facebook for users and advertisers. This could spark innovation in features, service quality, and privacy protections.
An independent Instagram might return to its photography roots. WhatsApp could focus on privacy and secure messaging without pressure to integrate with Meta’s advertising business. Increased competition could improve data privacy practices and content moderation.
A Forrester poll found 54% of Americans believe Meta holds a monopoly. Another 43% think spinning off Instagram would benefit users.
Arguments Against Breaking Up Meta
A breakup could hurt the user experience. Cross-posting between Facebook and Instagram would disappear. Synced messaging features would end. The seamless integration users currently enjoy would be lost.
Critics argue fragmentation would create operational problems. Three separate companies would find it harder and more expensive to police harmful content, combat misinformation, and protect user privacy. Different policies and systems across platforms could confuse users and create security gaps.
Advertisers would face new challenges. Instead of managing campaigns through one system, businesses would need separate tools and strategies for three platforms. This could increase costs and reduce advertising efficiency.
Meta warns that dismantling a leading American technology company would help foreign competitors, particularly from China, in critical areas like artificial intelligence development.
Meta’s Data Collection Business Model
Meta is fundamentally a data-driven advertising company that happens to run social media platforms. The business model depends on collecting vast amounts of personal data to build detailed user profiles for targeted advertising.
How Meta Collects Your Data
On-Platform Tracking: Meta records every action users take across its apps. This includes posts, photos, comments, messages, and profile information like names, birthdays, and political views. The company also tracks behavioral data: every click, like, video view, and how long users look at content.
Meta collects technical information from devices including hardware models, operating systems, and IP addresses. Location data comes from GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals.
Off-Platform Tracking: The Meta Pixel extends surveillance beyond Meta’s apps. This code snippet sits on millions of third-party websites. It tracks what users view, add to shopping carts, and purchase, then sends this information back to Meta.
The pixel works even for people without Meta accounts. Investigations found it collecting sensitive information from tax filing sites and patient data from hospital websites.
Third-Party Data Integration: Meta encourages businesses to upload customer information about offline activities like in-store purchases. This connects users’ online and offline behaviors for more valuable advertising profiles.
Cambridge Analytica Exposed the Risks
The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed the dangers of Meta’s data-centric model. A personality quiz app called “This Is Your Digital Life” harvested data from up to 87 million Facebook users. The app collected information not just from quiz takers but from their entire network of friends.
Cambridge Analytica used this data to build psychographic profiles for micro-targeting voters during the 2016 presidential election. The scandal caused Facebook’s market value to drop over $100 billion. Zuckerberg testified before Congress, and the company paid a record $5 billion FTC fine.
The scandal wasn’t a simple data breach. Experts called it an “inevitable consequence” of a business model built on “surveillance capitalism.” It exposed the fundamental conflict between profiting from data aggregation and protecting user privacy.
New Privacy Laws Target Meta
States have led privacy regulation efforts while Congress considers federal action. These laws directly threaten Meta’s data collection practices.
California Sets the Standard
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), expanded by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), grants residents powerful rights over their personal information:
Right to Know: Consumers can demand businesses disclose what personal information they collect, its sources, and who they share it with.
Right to Delete: Consumers can request deletion of their personal information.
Right to Opt-Out: Consumers can direct businesses not to sell or share their personal information, often through “Do Not Sell or Share” links.
Right to Correct: Consumers can request correction of inaccurate personal data.
Right to Limit Sensitive Data Use: Consumers can restrict use of sensitive information like precise location, health data, or financial details to only what’s necessary for requested services.
The CCPA applies to businesses operating in California with over $25 million in annual revenue or processing data from 100,000+ California residents. Because of California’s economic size, the CCPA effectively became a national standard for many companies.
Federal Privacy Law Proposed
The American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) of 2024 would create uniform national privacy standards. Key provisions include:
Data Minimization: Companies could only collect, process, or transfer personal data that’s “necessary, proportionate, and limited” to providing requested services.
Affirmative Express Consent: Companies would need explicit consent before transferring sensitive data to third parties.
Private Right of Action: Individuals could sue companies for certain privacy violations.
Data Broker Registry: The FTC would maintain a national registry of data brokers.
The Preemption Debate Blocks Progress
The main obstacle to federal privacy law is preemption. Tech companies want federal law to replace the complex web of state laws. A single national standard would provide certainty and consistent compliance requirements.
Privacy advocates fear federal law could be weaker than strong state laws like California’s. They worry preemption would reduce consumer privacy protections rather than strengthen them.
Any meaningful privacy regulation threatens Meta’s core business model. The company’s revenue directly relates to the volume and detail of data it collects. Rules that limit data collection hit Meta where it hurts most: its revenue.
Content Moderation Challenges
Meta’s platforms have become vectors for harmful content with real-world consequences. The scale of the problem has led to calls for government intervention that clash with free speech protections. While Meta points to community-building and information-sharing benefits, critics cite several documented harms:
Documented Harms from Platform Content
Election Interference: Russian operatives used Facebook to influence the 2016 election. The Internet Research Agency created 120 fake pages and published 80,000 posts that reached an estimated 126 million Americans. Meta was slow to respond despite warnings about similar Russian campaigns in Ukraine.
Zuckerberg initially dismissed the idea that Facebook misinformation influenced the election as “pretty crazy.” He later regretted this statement.
Health Misinformation: Meta’s platforms spread dangerous health misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2021 Avaaz study found climate science misinformation posts received 25 million views on Facebook, with minimal fact-checking.
Instagram and TikTok feature misleading health advice from influencers promoting unproven medical tests without disclosing financial interests or potential harms. Meta maintains policies against widely debunked health claims, but the content volume makes enforcement difficult.
Algorithmic Amplification: Social media algorithms designed to maximize engagement systematically favor sensationalist, extremist, and false content because it generates more reactions and shares than truthful information.
This creates an information ecosystem where false and extremist content outperforms accurate information. The dynamic fuels political polarization, increases hostility, undermines trust in democratic institutions, and has contributed to real-world violence from the January 6 Capitol riot to violence in Myanmar.
Section 230 Protects Platforms
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides two critical protections that allowed platforms like Meta to flourish:
Liability Shield: Online platforms cannot be treated as publishers of user-generated content. Meta cannot be sued for defamation or other harms based on user posts.
Good Samaritan Provision: Platforms face no liability when voluntarily moderating content they consider “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This allows them to enforce community standards.
Bipartisan Pressure for Section 230 Reform
Both political parties want to reform Section 230, but for opposite reasons:
Pro-Moderation Argument: Critics including President Biden argue Section 230 grants platforms sweeping immunity that lets them profit from amplifying harmful content without legal consequences. Proposed reforms create “carve-outs” for specific illegal content like child abuse material or terrorism.
Anti-Censorship Argument: Defenders argue weakening Section 230 would devastate online free expression. Without protection, platforms would face constant lawsuits, forcing them to over-censor content or stop hosting user-generated material. This would hurt smaller platforms and entrench giants like Meta.
First Amendment Creates Additional Barriers
Even without Section 230, the First Amendment would still protect platforms. The Supreme Court has affirmed that private companies have First Amendment rights to make editorial judgments about what speech to publish or host.
Laws in Texas and Florida attempting to force platforms to carry certain political viewpoints have been largely viewed as unconstitutional. The government cannot compel private companies to host speech they find objectionable.
The content moderation debate reveals a public contradiction. Polls show Americans oppose government speech regulation but want social media platforms to do more policing of misinformation and harmful content. This creates political deadlock that makes legislative consensus nearly impossible.
Algorithmic Accountability Proposals
Critics argue Meta’s automated systems operate as “black boxes” that make critical decisions without transparency or accountability. New proposals target these algorithmic systems rather than individual content.
The Housing Discrimination Case
The Department of Justice’s 2022 lawsuit against Meta illustrates algorithmic bias risks. The DOJ alleged Meta’s ad-delivery algorithm for housing violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating based on race and sex.
Even when advertisers set broad target audiences, the algorithm learned to show ads to skewed subsets, perpetuating housing segregation patterns. Meta settled the case, agreeing to pay penalties, stop using its discriminatory “Special Ad Audience” tool, and develop a less biased system under court supervision.
Proposed Algorithmic Accountability Act
The Algorithmic Accountability Act would require companies using automated systems for “critical decisions” affecting housing, employment, credit, healthcare, and other essential services to conduct regular “impact assessments.”
These assessments would force companies to study and document potential algorithmic bias, privacy risks, and other harms, then take steps to reduce negative impacts. Companies would report findings to the FTC and provide consumers more information about algorithmic decision-making.
Protecting Children Online
Evidence linking heavy social media use to teen mental health problems has sparked the most politically potent area of regulation. A 2023 Surgeon General advisory connected social media to higher rates of body dissatisfaction, eating disorders, and addictive behaviors among teens.
Researchers point to platforms promoting unrealistic appearance standards and using “addictive” design features like infinite scrolling and autoplay as key problems.
State-Level Child Protection Laws
States across the country have enacted legislation to protect young users. Most laws share common provisions:
Age Verification: Requiring platforms to verify user ages.
Parental Consent: Mandating verifiable parental consent before minors can create accounts.
Default Privacy Settings: Requiring accounts for minors to default to highest privacy and safety settings.
States like Maryland take it a step further. “Kids Code” prohibits collecting minors’ data for targeted advertising or personalized content feeds.
Legal Challenges to State Laws
Tech industry groups like NetChoice have successfully challenged many state laws, arguing they violate the First Amendment by restricting minors’ access to information and protected speech. Courts have blocked laws in Utah, Ohio, Arkansas, and California.
This has led to federal action proposals. The Kids Off Social Media Act would set a national minimum age of 13 for social media, prohibit personalized recommendation systems for users under 17, and grant enforcement power to the FTC and state attorneys general.
Current State of Child Protection Laws
| State | Key Legislation | Core Provisions | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | CCPA/CPRA; Age-Appropriate Design Code Act | Data privacy rights; Age-appropriate design, high default privacy for minors | CCPA/CPRA in effect; Design Code blocked by court |
| Utah | Social Media Regulation Act | Parental consent; Age verification; Social media curfew; Disables addictive features | Blocked by court injunction |
| Florida | HB 3 | Parental consent; Age verification; Limits exposure to harmful content | Effective July 2025 |
| Maryland | Maryland Kids Code | High default privacy for users under 16; Bans data collection for personalized content | In effect (Oct. 2024) |
| Arkansas | Social Media Safety Act | Age verification; Parental consent for minors | Blocked by court injunction |
| Ohio | Parental Notification by Online Operators Act | Age verification; Parental consent for minors | Blocked by court injunction |
The repeated court injunctions demonstrate the constitutional challenges these laws face. Courts must balance government interest in protecting children with minors’ First Amendment rights to access information.
The Innovation Question
A central argument against broad regulation is that it will stifle innovation that made companies like Meta global leaders. This creates a dilemma between reining in Big Tech and maintaining economic growth.
Regulation as Innovation Killer
Economic research suggests regulation acts as a “tax” on innovation, discouraging investment and slowing growth. A National Bureau of Economic Research study found that when companies approach regulatory thresholds, their innovation rate measured by patents slows significantly.
Regulatory uncertainty diverts resources from research and development toward lobbying and legal preparation. Complex compliance requirements make firms risk-averse, discouraging development of new products and services.
From this perspective, aggressive Meta regulation could damage a key engine of American technological leadership.
Regulation as Innovation Driver
The opposing view holds that well-designed regulation can spur rather than kill innovation. The “Porter Hypothesis” suggests stringent regulations force firms to develop new, more efficient technologies to meet compliance standards.
A Meta antitrust breakup could unleash competition and creativity in social media as new players compete on features, privacy, and user experience. Strong data privacy laws could create markets for privacy-enhancing technologies.
Research indicates flexible regulations that set clear goals but allow multiple compliance paths tend to aid innovation. Rigid, prescriptive rules that dictate specific technologies are more likely to stifle progress.
The critical question is not whether to regulate, but how to design performance-based rules that foster competition rather than being overly prescriptive.
Meta’s AI Pivot
Meta is undergoing a massive strategic shift from social media toward artificial intelligence. The company is investing billions in generative AI models, AI-powered smart glasses, and the “metaverse.” Zuckerberg envisions bringing “personal superintelligence” to everyone, competing directly with Google and OpenAI.
The regulatory frameworks being debated will shape development of these future technologies. An antitrust breakup could split Meta’s AI research teams and disrupt innovation. Federal privacy laws could limit data available to train advanced AI models. Algorithmic accountability principles will set precedents for governing Meta’s future AI products.
This strategic shift appears designed to outrun current regulatory threats. By rebranding from Facebook to Meta and focusing on AI, the company is trying to redefine its corporate identity away from the “toxic” social media brand that attracts public anger and government scrutiny.
The name “Facebook” is linked to scandals like Cambridge Analytica and 2016 election interference. The FTC lawsuit targets its “personal social networking” monopoly. By declaring its future lies in the metaverse and AI, Meta makes a narrative argument: “Don’t regulate us for past sins; look at the innovative future we’re building.”
This complicates regulators’ task. It’s harder to justify breaking up a company based on historical market power if that company can plausibly claim its future lies in an entirely different, emerging field. The innovation dilemma becomes part of Meta’s real-world survival strategy.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.