Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp, stated that prior to the sale of his messaging platform to Mark Zuckerberg, there were no intentions to develop social networking features similar to those offered by Facebook. This assertion supports Meta’s defense against ongoing federal antitrust accusations.
During his testimony at a federal courthouse in Washington on Tuesday, Acton emphasized that WhatsApp lacked ambitions to incorporate any Facebook-like functionalities, such as a news feed. He noted that had the company remained independent, it could have continued to operate on a subscription model rather than shifting to a targeted advertising approach.
Acton’s remarks were part of the ongoing antitrust trial brought forth by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is now in its sixth week. The FTC alleges that Meta Platforms Inc. has monopolized the social networking market through its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram over the past decade and is pursuing a breakup of the company. Meta has countered these claims, asserting that it faces substantial competition from a variety of rivals, including TikTok and Apple, which the FTC has allegedly ignored.
The FTC has focused heavily on Meta’s 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp for approximately $19 billion, arguing that the company recognized the messaging app as a potential competitor in the social networking space. Although WhatsApp was functioning primarily as a private messaging service at the time, documents submitted to the court indicate that Meta executives expressed concerns about the app potentially evolving into a competitor in social networking.
Meta CEO Zuckerberg communicated to the company’s board of directors in February 2013 that the major competitive threat would come from a messaging app that could escalate into a broader social network, underscoring the value Meta placed on messaging capabilities.
Documents reveal that Zuckerberg worked diligently to persuade WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum for over a year leading up to the acquisition, during which Meta monitored the growth and features of various mobile messaging platforms, including WhatsApp.
In contrast, Meta’s legal representatives have claimed that there were no plans for WhatsApp to transition into social networking or to establish a competitive advertising model. A handwritten note from Acton, which circulated in court, read “No Ads! No Games! No Gimmicks!” and former WhatsApp employees corroborated that there were no initiatives to introduce such features. Acton took the stand to reinforce this defense.
During questioning, Acton was asked if advertising value had factored into Meta’s offer for WhatsApp. Although he admitted he was unsure about the specifics, he assumed that advertising considerations were intrinsic to Meta’s operational framework. Acton also conceded that WhatsApp would have continued to introduce features had it not been acquired by Meta.
Additionally, Acton expressed his disapproval of Facebook launching a commercial version of WhatsApp, citing concerns over the potential erosion of end-to-end encryption. He noted that this business model was initiated after his departure from the company. A significant aspect of the FTC’s case revolves around demonstrating that the acquisitions led to consumer detriment that would have been avoided had WhatsApp or Instagram remained independent.
When questioned by Meta’s attorney, Acton stated that he believed the offer made to WhatsApp represented a “fair valuation” based on the app’s user base. He pointed out the success of the subscription model in several countries in 2014 and posited that there was untapped potential for increasing subscription revenues.
Since leaving Meta in 2018, Acton has had a tumultuous relationship with his former employer. Although he gained billions from the sale of WhatsApp—currently valued at around $4.5 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index—he departed due to concerns over Meta’s move to monetize the app through advertisements, which he felt could compromise user privacy. His discontent was further highlighted after the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal in 2018 when he tweeted “#DeleteFacebook.”
The case in question is Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms Inc., 20-cv-03590, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
© 2025 Bloomberg LP
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
