throbber
USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 1 of 99
`NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`PUBLIC COPY—SEALED MATERIAL DELETED
`21-7078
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the District of Columbia Circuit
`STATE OF NEW YORK; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
`COLORADO; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF IOWA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF
`NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF TENNESSEE; STATE OF ALASKA;
`STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
`DELAWARE; TERRITORY OF GUAM; STATE OF HAWAII; STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF
`ILLINOIS; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF KANSAS; COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY;
`STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND; COMMONWEALTH OF
`MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
`MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE
`OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
`NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF OREGON; COMMONWEALTH OF
`PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF UTAH; STATE
`OF VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF
`WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; AND STATE OF WYOMING,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Columbia
`
`BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS
`
`
`
`
`BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
` Solicitor General
`STEVEN C. WU
` Deputy Solicitor General
`PHILIP J. LEVITZ
` Assistant Solicitor General
`
`of Counsel
`(Complete counsel listing appears on signature pages.)
`
`LETITIA JAMES
` Attorney General
` State of New York
`28 Liberty Street
`New York, NY 10005
`philip.levitz@ag.ny.gov
`(212) 416-6325
`
`
`Dated: January 14, 2022
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 2 of 99
`
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES,
`RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), the undersigned counsel of record
`
`certifies as follows:
`
`A. Parties
`The plaintiffs-appellants are the State of New York, District of
`
`Columbia, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Florida, State
`
`of Iowa, State of Nebraska, State of North Carolina, State of Ohio, State
`
`of Tennessee, State of Alaska, State of Arizona, State of Arkansas, State
`
`of Connecticut, State of Delaware, Territory of Guam, State of Hawaii,
`
`State of Idaho, State of Illinois, State of Indiana, State of Kansas,
`
`Commonwealth of Kentucky, State of Louisiana, State of Maine, State of
`
`Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Michigan, State of
`
`Minnesota, State of Mississippi, State of Missouri, State of Montana,
`
`State of Nebraska, State of Nevada, State of New Hampshire, State of
`
`New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of North Dakota, State of Okla-
`
`homa, State of Oregon, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode
`
`Island, State of Texas, State of Utah, State of Vermont, Commonwealth
`
`Certificate-1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 3 of 99
`
`
`of Virginia, State of Washington, State of West Virginia, State of Wiscon-
`
`sin, and State of Wyoming.
`
`The defendant-appellee is Facebook, Inc. (In October 2021, Facebook,
`
`Inc. changed its name to Meta Platforms, Inc.; however, the caption in
`
`this case has not been changed.)
`
`The parties and caption in this Court are the same as in the district
`
`court.
`
`As of the date of this filing, no amici curiae or intervenors have
`
`appeared in the district court or in this Court.
`
`B. Ruling Under Review
`The ruling under review is the Memorandum Opinion of the Honor-
`
`able James E. Boasberg (ECF No. 137) and accompanying Order (ECF
`
`No. 136), each dated June 28, 2021, which granted defendant-appellee
`
`Facebook, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and dismissed this case. The Memo-
`
`randum Opinion and Order do not yet have official reporter citations, but
`
`the Memorandum Opinion is available on electronic databases, New York
`
`v. Facebook, Inc., No. 20-cv-3589, 2021 WL 2643724 (D.D.C. June 28, 2021).
`
`Certificate-2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 4 of 99
`
`
`C. Related Cases
`This case has not previously been before this Court or any other
`
`court. There is one related case, FTC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 20-cv-3590,
`
`pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, although
`
`the state plaintiffs in this case are not parties to the FTC’s case. The FTC’s
`
`case has not previously been before this Court or any court other than
`
`the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
`
`Certificate-3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 5 of 99
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................... ..iv
`GLOSSARY ............................................................................................... x
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................. 1
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................... 4
`ISSUES PRESENTED .............................................................................. 4
`PERTINENT STATUTES ......................................................................... 5
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 5
`A. Factual Background .................................................................. 5
`1. The market for personal social networking services ........ 5
`2. Facebook’s dominance of the market for personal
`social networking services ................................................. 6
`3. Facebook’s ongoing efforts to “buy or bury”
`potential competitors ......................................................... 7
`a. Acquisitions to “buy” nascent competitors ................. 8
`i.
`Instagram ............................................................ 9
`ii. WhatsApp .......................................................... 10
`iii. Other acquisitions ............................................. 11
`b. Policies to “bury” potential competitors ................... 11
`c. Harms to competition and consumers ..................... 13
`B. Procedural Background .......................................................... 14
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 6 of 99
`
`
`
`
`Page
`1. The States’ complaint ...................................................... 14
`2. The district court’s dismissal .......................................... 15
`STANDARD OF REVIEW....................................................................... 18
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 18
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 22
`POINT I
`THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING LACHES TO DISMISS
`THE STATES’ ACQUISITION-BASED CLAIMS ............................................ 22
`A. Laches Does Not Apply to States Suing to Enforce
`the Law and Protect Public Rights. ........................................ 22
`B. Assuming That Laches Can Apply Against the States,
`the District Court Misapplied the Doctrine to Bar the
`States’ Claims Here. ............................................................... 28
`1. The district court improperly “presumed” prejudice
`to Facebook without adequate factual basis. .................. 30
`2. The district court improperly assumed that the
`States unreasonably delayed in filing their complaint. .... 36
`
`POINT II
`THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE STATES’
`PLATFORM-BASED CLAIM ..................................................................... 42
`A. The District Court Wrongly Concluded That
`Injunctive Relief Was Unavailable for the Alleged
`Platform-Related Conduct. ..................................................... 44
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 7 of 99
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`1. The district court had no basis for finding that
`Facebook ceased its unlawful conduct when the
`complaint alleges otherwise. ........................................... 44
`Injunctive relief would remain available even
`if Facebook had in fact halted anticompetitive
`platform-related conduct. ................................................ 46
`B. The District Court Erroneously Disregarded the
`States’ Allegations Regarding the Scope and Effect
`of Facebook’s Platform Policy. ................................................ 50
`C. The District Court Too Narrowly Construed Both
`the Alleged Course of Conduct and Governing
`Antitrust Precedents. .............................................................. 53
`1. The district court improperly evaluated Facebook’s
`platform-related conduct in isolation, rather than
`as part of a unified course of conduct. ............................. 55
`2. The district court erred in construing Facebook’s
`platform-related conduct as a mere refusal to deal
`that could not give rise to antitrust liability as a
`matter of law. ................................................................... 58
`3. The district court improperly dismissed the States’
`claims without providing an opportunity for further
`factual development. ........................................................ 67
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 8 of 99
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES1
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allee v. Medrano,
`416 U.S. 802 (1974) ............................................................................. 46
`*Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.,
`472 U.S. 585 (1985) ........................................................... 21, 63, 64, 67
`Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor,
`567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................. 69
`Biden v. Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ.,
`141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021) ..................................................................... 3, 67
`California v. American Stores Co.,
`495 U.S. 271 (1990) ....................................................................... 26, 27
`City of Anaheim v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.,
`955 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1992) ....................................................... 56, 58
`*Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.,
`370 U.S. 690 (1962) ....................................................................... 21, 56
`Costello v. United States,
`365 U.S. 265 (1961) ....................................................................... 25, 35
`Covad Commc’ns Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp.,
`398 F.3d 666 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ....................................................... 22, 68
`*Daingerfield Island Protective Soc’y v. Lujan,
`920 F.2d 32 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ............................................. 29, 30, 31, 36
`Duty Free Ams., Inc. v. Estée Lauder Cos.,
`797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) ........................................................... 48
`
`1 Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks.
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 9 of 99
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`*Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc.,
`504 U.S. 451 (1992) ....................................................................... 63, 67
`Farrar v. Nelson,
`2 F.4th 986 (D.C. Cir. 2021) ............................................................... 18
`Ford Motor Co. v. United States,
`405 U.S. 562 (1972) ............................................................................. 49
`*Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc.,
`528 U.S. 167 (2000) ................................................................. 20, 46, 47
`FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,
`570 U.S. 136 (2013) ............................................................................. 61
`FTC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-3590 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2022) ......................................... 17, 35
`FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................... 68
`Gaudreau v. American Promotional Events, Inc.,
`511 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2007) ..................................................... 33
`Gregory v. Ashcroft,
`501 U.S. 452 (1991) ............................................................................. 26
`*Guaranty Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. United States,
`304 U.S. 126 (1938) ........................................................... 18, 19, 22, 23
`Gull Airborne Instruments, Inc. v. Weinberger,
`694 F.2d 838 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ........................................................ 33-34
`Hurd v. District of Columbia, Gov’t,
`864 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 44
`Illinois v. Kentucky,
`500 U.S. 380 (1991) ............................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 10 of 99
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re G-Fees Antitrust Litig.,
`584 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2008) ....................................................... 48
`In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litig.,
`335 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2004) ......................................................... 48
`International Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. General Tel. & Elecs. Corp.,
`518 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1975) ......................................................... 26, 31
`Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.,
`677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1982) ............................................................. 31
`LePage’s Inc. v. 3M,
`324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) .................................................... 56, 57, 58
`*Lorain Journal Co. v. United States,
`342 U.S. 143 (1951) .................................................................. 60-61, 62
`Loumiet v. United States,
`828 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 38
`Massachusetts ex rel. Bellotti v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc.,
`541 F. Supp. 143 (D. Mass. 1982) .................................................. 23-24
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`549 U.S. 497 (2007) ............................................................................. 29
`*Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States,
`614 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ................................................. 18, 19, 28
`National Soc’y of Pro. Eng’rs v. United States,
`435 U.S. 679 (1978) ............................................................................. 48
`Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2013) ................................................ 61-62, 68
`Ohio, Dep’t of Transp. v. Sullivan,
`527 N.E.2d 798 (Ohio 1988) ................................................................ 23
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 11 of 99
`
`
`Page(s)
`Cases
`Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.,
`797 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1986) ............................................................... 68
`Optronic Techs., Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Elec. Co.,
`20 F.4th 466 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................... 49
`Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States,
`410 U.S. 366 (1973) ....................................................................... 61, 65
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 663 (2014) ............................................................................. 38
`Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo,
`415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ......................................................... 29, 31
`Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo,
`567 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008) ....................................................... 35
`Puerto Rico v. Carpenter Co.,
`442 F. Supp. 3d 464 (D.P.R. 2020)...................................................... 27
`*Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Inv. in the U.S.,
`758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ............................................. 5, 18, 20, 51
`SEC v. First Am. Bank & Tr. Co.,
`481 F.2d 673 (8th Cir. 1973) ............................................................... 47
`SEC v. Manor Nursing Ctrs., Inc.,
`458 F.2d 1082 (2d Cir. 1972) .............................................................. 47
`Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia,
`155 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ............................................................. 18
`Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc.,
`988 F.3d 690 (4th Cir. 2021) ............................................................... 38
`United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass’n,
`140 S. Ct. 1837 (2020) ......................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 12 of 99
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`United States v. Borden Co.,
`347 U.S. 514 (1954) ................................................................. 26, 29, 39
`United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc.,
`399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005) ................................................................ 53
`*United States v. Grinnell Corp.,
`384 U.S. 563 (1966) ....................................................................... 43, 54
`United States v. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to the
`Marquis de Lafayette Dated July 21, 1780,
`15 F.4th 515 (1st Cir. 2021) ................................................................ 23
`*United States v. Microsoft Corp.,
`253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ...... 3, 21, 32, 43, 48, 53, 54, 60, 63, 66, 67
`United States v. Mottolo,
`605 F. Supp. 898 (D.N.H. 1985) .......................................................... 23
`Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`540 U.S. 398 (2004) ................................................................. 61, 63, 64
`Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.,
`951 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2020) ......................................................... 64, 68
`Washington v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016) ................................................................. 24
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc.,
`395 U.S. 100 (1969) ............................................................................. 32
`Laws
`15 U.S.C.
`§ 2 ........................................................................................................ 15
`§ 18 ...................................................................................................... 15
`§ 18a .................................................................................................... 41
`§ 26 ................................................................................................ 24, 25
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 13 of 99
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Miscellaneous Authorities
`C. Scott Hemphill & Tim Wu, Nascent Competitors,
`168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1879 (2020) ............................................... 37, 40, 66
`Competition & Mkts. Auth., Completed Acquisition by
`Facebook, Inc (Now Meta Platforms Inc) of Giphy, Inc.:
`Summary of Final Report (Nov. 30, 2021),
`https://tinyurl.com/ycknk247 ................................................................ 8
`Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust and Platform Monopoly,
`130 Yale L.J. 1952 (2021) ................................................................... 50
`Press Release, Eur. Comm’n, Mergers: Commission Fines
`Facebook €110 Million for Providing Misleading
`Information About WhatsApp Takeover (May 18, 2017),
`https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_1369 ...... 38
`1 William Blackstone, Commentaries (Lewis ed. 1902) (1765) .............. 23
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 14 of 99
`
`API
`
`FTC
`
`GLOSSARY
`application programming interface
`
`Federal Trade Commission
`
`x
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 15 of 99
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Facebook is a monopolist that has exploited its immense market
`
`power to crush competition. Through an ongoing course of conduct to “buy
`
`or bury” nascent competitors, Facebook has maintained a monopoly that
`
`harms its users and the public at large. A coalition of forty-eight plaintiff
`
`States2 filed this antitrust action to hold Facebook accountable for its
`
`anticompetitive conduct and protect consumers from further harm.
`
`Without allowing discovery, the U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Columbia (Boasberg, J.) dismissed the States’ complaint, concluding that
`
`(1) laches barred the States’ claims based on Facebook’s anticompetitive
`
`acquisitions; and (2) the States could not obtain injunctive relief on their
`
`claim that Facebook sought to bury nascent competitors, including by
`
`conditioning and selectively denying access to its platform. This Court
`
`should reverse.
`
`The district court’s determination that laches bars the States’
`
`acquisition-based claims is erroneous for multiple independent reasons.
`
`
`
`2 The plaintiffs include the forty-six States identified on the cover
`page, the District of Columbia, and the Territory of Guam; they are refer-
`red to collectively as “the States.”
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 16 of 99
`
`
`Laches does not apply against sovereign States suing to protect the public
`
`interest, like the States here. And even if laches could apply against the
`
`States, the district court misapplied the doctrine by failing to afford ade-
`
`quate deference to the States’ critical role in protecting the public interest
`
`through antitrust enforcement actions like this one. The district court
`
`thus erred in presuming—contrary to the allegations in the complaint—
`
`that Facebook would suffer prejudice and that the States had unreason-
`
`ably delayed their suit. As this Court has repeatedly recognized, such fact-
`
`intensive questions should not be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
`
`The district court’s dismissal of the States’ platform-based claim
`
`also warrants reversal—again, largely because the district court relied
`
`on presumptions contrary to the complaint. For example, the court
`
`assumed that Facebook had ceased its unlawful platform conduct by 2018
`
`and that injunctive relief was thus categorically unavailable. But the
`
`States’ complaint alleges otherwise. And injunctive relief remains avail-
`
`able even when a monopolist ceases its unlawful conduct. Similarly, the
`
`court credited Facebook’s characterizations of its platform policy, rather
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 17 of 99
`
`
`than accepting as true (as it was required to do) the complaint’s allega-
`
`tions that Facebook’s policy prohibited third-party apps that posed a
`
`competitive threat from accessing its platform.
`
`At base, the district court’s refusal to allow the States to proceed to
`
`discovery reflected an extraordinary, insupportably narrow view of the
`
`scope of the federal antitrust laws. This Court has repeatedly made clear
`
`that antitrust laws must be applied flexibly because “the means of illicit
`
`exclusion, like the means of legitimate competition, are myriad.” United
`
`States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc). And
`
`such flexibility is particularly important for digital markets like the one
`
`for personal social networking services, since “applying old doctrines to
`
`new digital platforms is rarely straightforward.” Biden v. Knight First
`
`Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1221 (2021) (Thomas,
`
`J., concurring). The district court’s precipitous dismissal disregarded both
`
`the breadth of the antitrust laws and the extensive allegations in the
`
`States’ complaint, and freed Facebook to continue harming competition,
`
`chilling innovation and investment in social-networking alternatives,
`
`and degrading user experience, privacy, and data protection. This Court
`
`should reverse and allow the States’ well-pleaded claims to proceed.
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 18 of 99
`
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.
`
`The district court issued a final order on June 28, 2021. (Joint Appendix
`
`(JA) 216.) The States filed a timely appeal on July 28, 2021. (JA 284.)
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`(1)(a) Whether the equitable doctrine of laches applies to sovereign
`
`state enforcement proceedings.
`
`(b) Whether, even if so, the district court failed to give adequate
`
`deference to the States’ enforcement prerogatives and improperly assumed
`
`prejudice to Facebook and unreasonable delay by the States in dismissing
`
`the acquisition-based claims on laches grounds.
`
`(2)(a) Whether injunctive relief is available in this antitrust enforce-
`
`ment action by sovereign States.
`
`(b) Whether the district court made improper assumptions, contrary
`
`to the complaint’s allegations, regarding the scope and effect of Face-
`
`book’s platform policy.
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 19 of 99
`
`
`(c) Whether the district court too narrowly construed Facebook’s
`
`alleged misconduct and well-settled antitrust principles in dismissing the
`
`States’ monopolization claim.
`
`PERTINENT STATUTES
`
`Pertinent statutes are set forth in the addendum at the conclusion
`
`of this brief.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A. Factual Background3
`1. The market for personal social networking services
`Personal social networking services are online services that enable
`
`people to maintain personal relationships and share experiences with
`
`friends, family, and other connections in a shared social space equivalent
`
`to a digital “town square.” (JA 50, 52-53 (¶¶ 28, 36).) Facebook is, by far,
`
`the largest personal social network, and dominates the market for personal
`
`social networking services. (JA 53, 61-62, 353-354 (¶¶ 38, 66-72).)
`
`
`
`3 The facts in this section are taken from the complaint and must
`be treated as true. See, e.g., Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Inv. in
`the U.S., 758 F.3d 296, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 20 of 99
`
`
`The market for personal social networking services has distinct
`
`features. First, users do not pay to use Facebook’s social network; instead,
`
`users provide Facebook their personal data, which Facebook monetizes
`
`by selling ads tailored to its users. (JA 45, 57 (¶¶ 2-3, 51).) Second, there
`
`are substantial barriers to entering the market, including network effects:
`
`because the value of a network to users increases as more users join, new
`
`entrants have difficulty gaining traction against a well-established incum-
`
`bent like Facebook. (JA 54 (¶ 41).)
`
`2. Facebook’s dominance of the market for personal
`social networking services
`
`Facebook launched in 2004, when the market for personal social
`
`networking services was emerging. (JA 59 (¶¶ 60-61).) By 2008, Facebook
`
`had become the largest personal social network in the world and, by 2011,
`
`boasted that it comprised “95% of all social media in the US” (JA 60
`
`(¶¶ 66, 68)). Today, more than half of the U.S. population over age thir-
`
`teen use a Facebook service every day. (JA 45 (¶ 1).)
`
`Facebook initially came to dominate the market for personal social
`
`networking services, in substantial part, by entering into mutually bene-
`
`ficial relationships with third-party app developers. (JA 48, 62 (¶¶ 14,
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 21 of 99
`
`
`79).) Facebook created a set of application programming interfaces (APIs)
`
`that permit third-party apps to connect to, use features from, and share
`
`data with the Facebook platform. (JA 62-63 (¶¶ 80-82).) Among these
`
`APIs are (1) Find Friends, which allows users to find and interact with
`
`their Facebook friends on other apps; (2) Facebook Connect, which lets
`
`users sign into third-party apps using their Facebook credentials; and (3)
`
`Open Graph APIs, which enable third-party apps to add Facebook plug-
`
`ins such as a “Like” button on the third-party app. (JA 63, 90-91, 92-93
`
`(¶¶ 81-82, 190-191, 197).) Facebook benefits from offering its APIs because
`
`their use by third parties leads to greater user engagement and addi-
`
`tional user data that support Facebook’s advertising business. Third
`
`parties in turn value API access because it enables them to expand their
`
`products’ features and distribution. (JA 62-63, 92-93 (¶¶ 80-82, 195-197).)
`
`3. Facebook’s ongoing efforts to “buy or bury”
`potential competitors
`
`Once Facebook dominated the market for social networking services
`
`(see supra at 6), it initiated a strategy to maintain its monopoly power by
`
`either buying potential competitors, or, if buying was not an option,
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 22 of 99
`
`
`burying them by exploiting reliance on its platform to prevent them from
`
`successfully competing. (JA 45-46, 67-68, 69 (¶¶ 4-6, 99, 104).)
`
`a. Acquisitions to “buy” nascent competitors
`From 2012 through 2020, Facebook acquired dozens of companies,
`
`and pursued many more acquisitions. Many acquisitions were pursued
`
`in an anticompetitive effort to eliminate or thwart nascent competition—
`
`in Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s words, to “build a competitive moat”
`
`around Facebook—and maintain its monopoly. (JA 46, 69-70 (¶¶ 5, 105-
`
`106).) Facebook continues to seek to identify and acquire competitive
`
`threats. (JA 88-89 (¶¶ 181-183).)4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 For instance, while this appeal was pending, the United Kingdom’s
`competition authority determined that Facebook’s recent acquisition of
`the leading provider of “GIF” visual content, GIPHY, was anticom-
`petitive, and ordered Facebook to divest GIPHY. See Competition &
`Mkts. Auth., Completed Acquisition by Facebook, Inc (Now Meta Platforms
`Inc) of Giphy, Inc.: Summary of Final Report (Nov. 30, 2021),
`https://tinyurl.com/ycknk247.
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 23 of 99
`
`
`Instagram
`i.
`When Facebook acquired Instagram, Instagram was an innovative
`
`and rapidly growing social network emphasizing photo sharing. While
`
`Facebook was built for computers, Instagram was built for increasingly
`
`popular mobile devices with built-in cameras. (JA 70 (¶¶ 107-110).)
`
`Zuckerberg believed mobile-based apps like Instagram could
`
`“replace us” (JA 71 (¶ 111)), given Facebook’s weakness in exploiting
`
`mobile photos (JA 68, 71 (¶¶ 100, 113)). That threat to Facebook’s mono-
`
`poly led Zuckerberg to pursue acquiring Instagram to, as he admitted,
`
`“neutralize a potential competitor.” (JA 71-72 (¶¶ 114-116).) Instagram
`
`got the message. As its CEO explained, it would accept the acquisition to
`
`avoid “the wrath of [M]ark”—that is, the risk that Facebook would exploit
`
`Instagram’s reliance on Facebook’s APIs to bury Instagram if Instagram
`
`refused to sell. (JA 73 (¶ 120).)
`
`Instagram accordingly agreed to be acquired by Facebook for $1
`
`billion. At the time, Instagram had only sixteen employees and no revenue
`
`stream. A substantial portion of the purchase price was a premium
`
`Facebook was willing to pay to remove a competitive threat. (JA 70, 74
`
`(¶¶ 107, 122).)
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-7078 Document #1930765 Filed: 01/14/2022 Page 24 of 99
`
`
`ii. WhatsApp
`Having subdued the competitive threat of Instagram, Facebook
`
`identified its relative weakness in mobile messaging as its top remaining
`
`competitive threat in the mobile era. (JA 69, 80-82 (¶¶ 103, 150-153).)
`
`Facebook was particularly concerned about WhatsApp, a fast-growing
`
`messaging app that Facebook viewed as a “category leader” with “better
`
`interface” and “better product” than other messaging apps. WhatsApp
`
`was available on multiple mobile operating systems and had recently
`
`surpassed Facebook’s messenger service as the world’s most popular
`
`messaging app. (JA 82-83 (¶¶ 154-157, 159-160).) Although WhatsApp
`
`did not then offer personal social networking services, Facebook was
`
`concerned that it could capita

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket