The US Federal Trade Commission sees Meta in court, starting tomorrow. It’s the culmination of a nearly six-year investigation on whether Meta has a monopoly on the personal social networking market or not.
The FTC argues that by acquiring Instagram (2012) and WhatsApp (2014) it “enabled Facebook to sustain its dominance—to the detriment of competition and users—not by competing on the merits, but by avoiding competition.”
Meta argues the FTC’s case is “weak” and “ignores reality.” The company asserts, “The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram competes with TikTok (and YouTube and X and many other apps).”
54% Of Poll Respondents Think Meta Has A Monopoly On Social Media*
We ran an overnight “quick pulse-check” poll in Forrester’s ConsumerVoices Market Research Online Community. We asked them to react to the potential forced split up of Meta. About 500 online adults across the US, UK, and Canada responded. The results show ambivalence and agreement:
54% agree that Meta has a monopoly on the personal social networking market. (27% are neutral and 19% disagree)
43% agree that Instagram spinning off into a separate company (separate from Meta) would be GOOD (50% are neutral and just 7% disagree)
45% agree that WhatsApp spinning off into a separate company (separate from Meta) would be GOOD (50% are neutral and just 5% disagree)
*Note: This poll was administered to a random sample of 497 online consumers in the US, UK, and Canada in Forrester’s qualitative ConsumerVoices online community. This data is not weighted to be representative of total country populations.
Our analysis of respondents’ open-ended statements found four common themes (below)— each with just one illustrative verbatim (of many):
Meta has too much power: “No company should have all that power and user data.”
Users are concerned about data privacy: “Not so easy to track behaviour if on different platforms.”
Some see an opportunity for innovation: “I think it allows it to grow and advance without the parent coming choosing what it does.”
People want marketplace competition: “Meta having a monopoly on 3 popular social media apps prevents competition and better oversight of these apps.”
Meta Has A Trust Problem. It’s Not New.
When Meta was just Facebook, the company suffered from trust issues. The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal created mainstream awareness of consumer data privacy issues—tarnishing Facebook’s already shaky reputation. And when the company rebranded as “Meta” in late 2021, Forrester found (back then) that 75% of poll respondents disagreed that a new company name would increase their trust in Facebook. It hasn’t. And that brings us back to present day.
According to Forrester’s February 2025 Consumer Pulse Survey, just about third of online adults (35% US and 30% UK) trust Meta (as a company) the same or more today than they did in 2024. And less than that have confidence in Mark Zuckerberg as the CEO of Meta (32% US and 28% UK).
But whether a Meta breakup would ultimately be good for social media users or not, according to one of our poll respondents (referring to Instagram), “It depends who takes it over.”
The Real Case To Keep Meta Intact? Interoperability.
Some respondents in Forrester’s ConsumerVoices Market Research Online Community pointed to the connectivity and governance across Meta’s family of apps as a good thing. “It’s really easy right now when I post to Instagram, it posts automatically to my Facebook page without me having to do that, so it’s really convenient,” someone replied. Another said, “There’s uniformity of policies at the moment, for example, rules for teenagers, which makes it a little simpler.”
Yet when we surveyed online adults in February, just 31% of them agreed that they benefit from Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp all being interoperable under one company (Meta). Forty-three percent disagreed with that statement (and 37% were neutral).
A Meta Breakup Is A Seismic Social Media Market Reset
The ramifications of this trial coupled with TikTok’s future in limbo potentially puts the very core of the social media market at play. No longer would Meta be its center of gravity. We haven’t seen anything like this since around 2006-2011—social media’s earliest days. Yes, there was a time when all of these apps were separate, and then some. We’d likely see a renaissance of social media startups looking to grab a piece of new social media world order.
So, what would happen to Meta? Sure, Meta is trying to make Facebook cool again. But the company’s social media “insurance” is (and has been for a while)… Instagram. Without Instagram and WhatsApp, what really is Meta? Could Facebook seriously compete with a stand-alone Instagram? Can Threads monetize at scale? Doubtful. And the company absolutely should not hang its hat on its fledging metaverse ambitions. Its AI Glasses are a bright spot. As is its broader AI work (i.e. LLAMA). That means in a broken-up Meta, the company’s AI initiatives would usurp its social media roots.
Would this be good for advertisers? Yes and no. It would certainly spawn a renewed wave of creativity in the marketplace. This could mean new and interesting ad types, targeting capabilities, and partnership opportunities. On the other hand, Meta’s sheer scale and reach is the one thing that makes the company’s family of apps a marketing mainstay.
A more fragmented marketplace would reduce social media’s advertising efficiencies—making brands work harder to plan, buy, and create custom ads across a newly expanded portfolio of platforms. Here’s the big (unanswered) question: If Meta is just Facebook (once again), would today’s advertisers even bother with it?
For now, marketing executives should keep doing what they’re doing. Meta’s not getting broken up anytime in the short-term. But hang tight and let the trial begin.
Forrester clients: Let’s chat more about this via a Forrester guidance session.
