Meta Platforms, Inc.

In a lawsuit currently pending, the FTC has alleged that Facebook engaged in a systematic strategy to eliminate competitive threats. They cite its 2012 acquisition of Instagram, 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp, and imposition of anti-competitive conditions on software developers as primary evidence of this.

The European Commission has also imposed interim measures (a step they have taken only twice in 20 years) by locking out third-party AI assistants from the WhatsApp Business API and effectively ensuring that Meta AI is the sole provider for 3 billion users. The EU's Theresa Ribera said "AI markets are developing at rapid pace, so we also need to be swift in our action. That is why we are considering quickly imposing interim measures on Meta, to preserve access for competitors to WhatsApp while the investigation is ongoing, and avoid Meta’s new policy irreparably harming competition in Europe."

The company has broken records around the world for data privacy fines. Ireland's Data Privacy Commission assessed a $1.2 billion fine for transferring European users' data to the United States, which is the largest GDPR fine yet. The Texas Attorney General won a $1.4 billion settlement against Meta for surreptitiously building a database of biometric facial data without user consent, in violation of the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act. The European Commission assessed an additional $200 million fine for Meta's ‘Consent or Pay' advertising model. Under this model, EU users of Facebook and Instagram had a choice between consenting to personal data combination for personalised advertising or paying a monthly subscription for an ad-free service. The Federal Trade Commission has also sought to ban Meta from collecting data on users under the age of 18 and block new product launches without a third party assessor's confirmation that META's privacy program has no gaps or weaknesses.

As of March 2026, Facebook is in the midst of a landmark jury trial facing allegations that it intentionally generates billions in revenue from illegal and fraudulent advertisements. A November 2025 leak of internal documents published by Reuters revealed that Meta expected 10.1% of its global revenue would come from scams, illegal onlne casinos, and prohibited medical products. The same analysis showed that Meta ran 15 billion of these "higher risk" ads every day, and charged these advertisers "penalty" rates instead of banning them. Included in these documents was a February 2025 memorandum which explicitly prohibited Meta's ad integrity and safety teams from taking any enforcement actions that would reduce total company revenue by more than .15%.

Meta CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg announced a "return to free expression" in late 2025, which ended the demotion of fact-checked content on Meta's platforms. Shortly thereafter, whistleblower reports found that they had effectively ceased enforcing climate misinformation policies, allowing greenwashing and fossil fuel-funded denialism ads to circulate unchecked despite previous public commitments. Additionally, their Misinformation Community Standard appears to be too narrow to catch sophisticated AI deepfakes, which creates a systemic gap where state-sponsored disinformation can circulate without friction.

Meta has enabled and spread hate speech and misinformation about Tigrayan, Rohynga, and Palestinian populations that is inextricably linked to their genocide. In some cases, they appear to take sides with the aggressors in these conflicts. For instance: Meta permitted the crowdfunding of IDF drones, provided a forum for 2.5 million hebrew-language posts using hashtags like "למחוק את עזה" (erase gaza), and granted 94% of all content removal requests from the Israeli State Attorney's office. To their credit, Meta is the only company we are aware of that has commissioned an independent audit of its conduct on israeli-palestinian matters. This is admirable. However, their response to this external audit reinforces our exclusion rationale: they chose to halt work on tracking hate speech by protected characteristics and declined to provide granular reasoning to users on the rationale behind striking their content. Their response betrays a deference to the letter of the law rather than their broader social responsibilities, a preference for internal technical optimization over external accountability, and a profound unwillingness to prudently manage their platform.