(no title)
surge | 10 months ago
Kind of stinks of less than valid motivations based on the timing of bringing this up over a decade after the fact.
surge | 10 months ago
Kind of stinks of less than valid motivations based on the timing of bringing this up over a decade after the fact.
ideashower|10 months ago
In 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that FTC officials in 2012 had concerns about the deal raising antitrust issues. However, they were apprehensive about potentially losing an antitrust case in court if they sued to block the deal.[2] If they would lose then on the merits of trying to enforce the Clayton Act, it would set a precedent that likely could not be undone.
[1] https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/facebook-instagram-deal-down-747m-...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-ceos-defend-operations-ahe...
repeekad|10 months ago
borski|10 months ago
Not specifically related to this case, necessarily, but if you let an acquisition go through and discover a decade later that it was, in fact, anticompetitive (and intentionally so), presumably you would still try to break up the resulting monopoly, even if you didn’t predict it would happen?
YetAnotherNick|10 months ago
dylan604|10 months ago
eastbound|10 months ago
- If I’m the politician, then I need to keep the company on the edge until the end of the trial where I promise them to be acquitted;
- If I’m the CEO, I need the trial to go through and acquit me, because it guarantees me against future trials.
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
wmf|10 months ago
bertil|10 months ago
They could argue that the decision was made based on declarations that did not align with the private conversation that Zuckerberg had at the time, as those emails came out since.
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]