FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. META PLATFORMS, INC.
1:20-cv-03590
D.D.C.Apr 2, 2025Background
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Meta Platforms, Inc., alleging antitrust violations related to the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, claiming monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
- In preparation for trial, both the FTC and Meta subpoenaed multiple nonparty witnesses from leading technology companies (e.g., Alphabet, Apple, Snap, TikTok) to provide live testimony and, in some instances, to produce documents.
- Nonparty witnesses moved to quash these subpoenas, arguing they exceeded Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45’s geographic (100-mile) limits and imposed undue burdens.
- The FTC and Meta asserted nationwide subpoena power under the Clayton Act (§ 23) for antitrust suits brought by the government, contending that the legal standard for burden was not met and that live, in-person testimony remained critical.
- The Court previously denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding material factual issues for trial, making witness testimony especially significant.
- Both parties agreed to allow three witnesses with specific hardships to testify remotely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geographic reach of trial subpoenas | Clayton Act authorizes nationwide service | Clayton Act authorizes nationwide service | Court held Clayton Act § 23 supersedes Rule 45(c); nationwide service allowed |
| Good cause for nationwide subpoenas | Scheduling order established good cause | Scheduling order established good cause | Court found joint scheduling order sufficient for good cause requirement |
| Application of geographic vs. compliance limitations | § 23 allows service & compliance anywhere | § 23 allows service & compliance anywhere | Court: § 23 displaces Rule 45(c)’s limits in this context |
| Undue burden of complying with subpoenas | No extraordinary burden was shown | No extraordinary burden was shown | Court: Subpoenas not unduly burdensome; some remote testimony allowed |
| Scope/narrowness of associated document requests | Requests are targeted & justified | Requests are targeted & justified | Court: Requests are reasonable and not unduly burdensome; not quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373 (Supreme Court interpreted "antitrust laws" under the Clayton Act to include the Sherman Act)
- FTC v. Cement Inst., 333 U.S. 683 (Conduct prohibited by antitrust laws included under Section 5 of the FTC Act)