Can You Gerrymander a Moat?!

Comparison:

You’re gonna need a smaller moat

On Monday, the first day of the trial, an FTC lawyer claimed that Meta chiefs were aware that the acquisitions [of Instagram and WhatsApp] would help the company build a ‘moat’ to fend off competition in the personal social networking industry, creating a monopoly[.]

Meta argued that the Commission has ‘gerrymandered a fictitious market’ . . . .

Sherwood writer Tom jones hones in on the relative size of a moat designed for defense and protection to capture the fractured dynamic legal dispute between Meta and the FTC. If “moat“ was not available as a point of comparison would the FTC attorneys have any other comparison options to indicate a means of defense and protection? And, since Meta clearly is operating in the 21 Century, would a cyber-reference to defense and protection work better than a medieval reference?

Context:

[Subhead:]You’re gonna need a smaller moat

On Monday, the first day of the trial, an FTC lawyer claimed that Meta chiefs were aware that the acquisitions would help the company build a ‘moat’ to fend off competition in the personal social networking industry, creating a monopoly in a space that includes only two other platforms, per the FTC’s argument: Snapchat and smaller platform MeWe.

Meta argued that the Commission has ‘gerrymandered a fictitious market’ with this take, in a company blog post titled, ‘The FTC’s Weak Case Against Meta Ignores Reality,’

which was posted a day before the trial kicked off.

Citation:

Jones, Tom. “Meta Offered $450 million to Settle its Antitrust Trial.” Sherwood, Sherwood.com, 16 April 2025. Web.

(Image design by Lee Aigue; base image courtesy of Bing April 2025.)