Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp, told an American federal court on Tuesday that the message platform never intended to build social network functions, such as Facebook. This claim hides the defense of Meta in the current antitrust process inserted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
“We had no ambition to build Facebook-like functionality, such as a feed or Facebook-like functions,” Acton explained during his testimony in Washington. He further suggested that WhatsApp could have remain viable as a subscription -based service instead of resorting to advertisements, if it was not taken over by Facebook (now Meta).
The testimony comes during the sixth week of a milestone Antitrust test in which the FTC Meta Platforms Inc. accuses the monopolization of the social network space through the acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. The agency tries to break out Meta, claiming that the company oppressed the competition by absorbing potential rivals.
A central argument in the case of the FTC is that Meta WhatsApp saw as an imminent threat in the social network arena, despite the fact that the app can be a private message service at the time of the acquisition of $ 19 billion in 2014. By quoting internal messages, the Meta -Executives agency, including CEO, depicted, including Ceo -Executives, including Ceo -Executives, including Ceo – – -Executives, Platform could evolve.
In an e-mail from 2013 to the board of Facebook, Zuckerberg warned about the risk that was set by Message apps that transform into full social networks. “The biggest competitive vector for us is that a company builds a Message app for communicating with small groups of people, and then transforms it into a broader social network,” he wrote.
However, Meta's legal team pushes back against this story. During Tuesday's session they presented a handwritten note of Acton itself, decorated with the message: “No ads! No games! No gimmicks!” As proof of the core philosophy of WhatsApp before the acquisition. Acton, called by Meta as a witness, confirmed that there were no plans to include social media positions or an advertising model in the road card of the app.
Under the interrogation of FTC lawyers, Acton admitted that he was not aware of the specific factors behind Meta's offer, but assumed that advertising potential was edited in the appreciation. He also acknowledged that WhatsApp would probably continue to expand its function set independently, although not in a way that mimics the Facebook platform.
Acton also expressed his concern about Meta's decision to launch a business version of WhatsApp, which is criticized for the possible endangering of the end-to-end coding of the app. This commercial arm of WhatsApp was developed after the departure of Acton from the company in 2018, a movement he said he was disappointing while he was still with Meta.
Despite the later divergence in values, Acton acknowledged that Meta's offer represented an “fair appreciation” in view of the user base of WhatsApp at the time. He emphasized the success of the app with his subscription model in different countries, which suggests that there was room to increase income via that route.
Since his exit, Acton has publicly distinguished himself from his former employer, in particular two -part “#deletefacebook” in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica -Scandaal in 2018. Although he was considerably benefited from the sale -his net value was estimated at $ 4.5 billion, according to Bloomberg -he has been sitting by the deal of dealing dealing of dealing dealing from dealing of deal from dealing of dealing deals by dealing.
The case,Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms Inc.is heard in the American court for the district of Columbia.
(With Bloomberg entrances)
