Zuckerberg: Snapchat would have grown faster if it accepted $6B buyout offer

Tech Crunch - Apr 16th, 2025

During Meta's ongoing antitrust trial, CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified that Snapchat could have experienced faster growth had it accepted Meta's acquisition offer in 2013. Meta, formerly Facebook, proposed to purchase Snapchat for $6 billion, although reports at the time noted a $3 billion offer. Zuckerberg suggested that Meta's resources and expertise would have enhanced Snapchat's development. This testimony was part of the FTC's broader argument that Meta seeks to sustain its dominance by acquiring potential competitors rather than engaging in direct competition.

The FTC aims to dismantle Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, alleging these purchases were strategic moves to neutralize competition and establish a monopoly in the social media market. This trial underscores the ongoing scrutiny of Meta’s business practices and the broader debate over antitrust regulations in the tech industry. The outcome could have significant implications for Meta’s corporate structure and the regulatory landscape governing technology giants.

Meta Ftc Social Media Mark Zuckerberg Monopoly Acquisitions Antitrust Trial Snapchat

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article effectively covers a significant legal event involving Meta and the FTC, providing a clear account of Zuckerberg's testimony and the broader antitrust issues at stake. It scores well in clarity and timeliness, making complex topics accessible and relevant. However, it could benefit from improved balance and source quality by incorporating a wider range of perspectives and authoritative sources. While it has the potential to impact public opinion and policy discussions, its influence is somewhat limited by the lack of diverse viewpoints. Overall, the story is a solid piece of reporting on a topic of considerable public interest, though there is room for enhancing its depth and engagement potential.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on the key aspects of the antitrust trial involving Meta and Mark Zuckerberg's testimony. It correctly states that Zuckerberg speculated that Snapchat would have grown faster had it been acquired by Meta. However, discrepancies exist regarding the acquisition offer amount, as the article mentions a $6 billion offer while initial reports suggested $3 billion. This inconsistency needs verification. Additionally, the story's claim about the FTC's intentions to restructure or force Meta to sell Instagram and WhatsApp aligns with the ongoing legal arguments but requires further confirmation from court documents or official FTC statements.

Balance

The article presents Meta's perspective, particularly through Zuckerberg's testimony, but lacks direct input from Snapchat or the FTC, which could provide a more balanced view. While it mentions the FTC's argument about Meta's acquisition strategy, it does not delve into counterarguments or perspectives from independent analysts or legal experts. Including these viewpoints would enhance the balance and provide a fuller picture of the trial's implications.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly presents the main points of the story. The language is straightforward, making the complex legal issues accessible to a general audience. The logical flow from Zuckerberg's testimony to the FTC's arguments is coherent, aiding reader comprehension. However, the article could benefit from more detailed explanations of legal terms and the implications of the trial outcomes to further enhance clarity.

Source quality

The article references Business Insider as the primary source for reporting Zuckerberg's testimony, which is generally a reliable source. However, it lacks a range of sources, such as direct quotes from court documents, statements from FTC officials, or comments from Snapchat representatives. This reliance on a single source limits the depth and reliability of the information presented. Expanding the source base to include diverse and authoritative voices would improve the article's credibility.

Transparency

The article is somewhat transparent in its reporting, clearly attributing Zuckerberg's statements to his testimony during the trial. However, it does not provide detailed context about the trial proceedings or the broader legal framework surrounding antitrust laws. Additionally, it doesn't disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the reporting. Greater transparency about the article's sources and the context of the trial would enhance reader understanding.