News
The Power of Quantitative Evidence: Kellogg Hansen Interview with Global Competition Review re: FTC v Meta
The recent ruling by Judge James Boasberg, which found that the FTC failed to demonstrate that Meta illegally monopolized the personal social networking market, marks a landmark moment in modern antitrust litigation.
In a recent interview with Global Competition Review, Kellogg Hansen partner Aaron Panner shared his reflections on the five-year journey as outside counsel for Meta. The victory, he notes, was not just a win for the company, but a testament to the evolving nature of Section 2 cases.
A Team Effort Under Pressure: Panner emphasized that the “gratifying” result was the product of a massive collaborative effort. Led by Mark Hansen, the legal team worked hand-in-hand with Meta’s in-house counsel and executives. This synergy allowed the team to develop the complex facts necessary to navigate a trial of this magnitude.
The Weight of Data: Why Meta Won: What resonated most with the court? According to Panner, it came down to “quantitative evidence of substitution.”
Natural Experiments: Data from events like the TikTok outage provided a real-world look at how users shift their time between apps.
Empirical Analysis: Controlled experiments (such as those by Professor List) offered the court concrete proof of a competitive market.
Competitive Reality: Documents and testimony showed that Meta’s investment decisions were driven by the need to respond to intense pressure from rivals.
The Human Element of the Trial: Beyond the data, Panner highlighted the importance of executive testimony. Working with Meta’s top executives allowed the legal team to translate a “very complicated” business into an educational experience for the court. And cross-examination of competitors revealed the “intense competition” Meta faces—facts that were ultimately reflected in the competitors’ own internal documents.
The Future of Section 2 Cases: The implications of this ruling extend far beyond Meta. Panner predicts that Judge Boasberg’s focus on market definition and empirical evidence will influence how antitrust lawyers develop and try cases for years to come.
In an era of “big tech” scrutiny, this case reinforces that at the end of the day, hard data and a clear narrative of competitive response remain the strongest defense.
Read the full article here (paywall)
Read more about Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB here