FTC

Independent-Green383

Let me guess, before issuing this order, Trump helped HHS, FDA, CMS, Commerce, USTR, DOJ, and FTC to develop regulations, monitor global prices, enforce compliance, manage importation, and handle legal challenges, all the while cutting down their workforce and budget, right?

ParentalAdvis0ry

Sooo couple questions: - How is this better than a price cap? - How the hell is this going to be enforced when the FDA, FTC, & SEC, and every other agency that might have an inkling of a jurisdictional interest, are actively being gutted? - What's to stop the drug maker from raising foreign prices to meet the current US price instead of lowering US prices? (The "get fucked poor countries" method) - Do countries receiving free meds through humanitarian programs count, thus granting us those drugs for free, too?

zhouyu24

GOOG in it with the DOJ and META in it with the FTC over antitrust laws.

spac420

not entitled to preliminary injunction means FTC is tryna taken em to trial.

cn607258

Article 2 does not give the president the power to use executive action to dictate trade policy nor does it allow him to raise taxes. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. The president can make treaties with the advice and consent of the senate. No treaty can be created by executive action alone not trade policy can be created by executive action alone. The Supreme Court has ruled on the advice and consent powers several times for treaties and international agreements. Also, most of the other trade policy the president overseas were the delegating of congressional authority through legislation. IE the creation of the SEC, FTC etc.

learningorsomething

The chain of getting in trouble looks like \- Anamolously good trade, timed well, large position \- Either FTC notices it or someone reports it to them \- One of their investigators looks into it \- Investigator surfaces your connection and/or sees this comment \- you get in trouble

GME_Me_ASAP

A lot of misinformation in the comments. Don't believe them, OP. It's against FTC regulation to have two CEOs in one industry who are related. It's a conflict of interest.

OrdinaryMix4013

FTC Release: FTC Takes Action Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices UBER up 2%. some clown shite.

primalmaximus

Yes, but if Google owns 70% of the marketshare for online advertising, it's close enough to one that the FTC is justified in splitting Google Adservices from the rest of Alphabet, since the data provided by the Google Search Engine and the Chrome browser is what enables Google Adservices to dominate so much of the market.

cbusoh66

It's 2030, Trump is now President for Life, The Pope, the Federal Reserve Chair, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Corporations have reported "record profits" for 24 straight quarters and can fudge their books as they see fit after the Supreme Leader has eliminated SEC, FTC, IRS, and most govt agencies. 78% of the U.S. population lives in poverty and continue to flood Mexican and Canadian borders illegally in endless "caravans" as they seek better lives for their children. SPY is 6000. WSB is 100 million members strong, with over 99.8% posting daily losses shorting TSLA and PLTR.

primalmaximus

It's the bundle of the Chrome Browser, the Google Search Engine, and Google Adworks. All 3 of those working in concert gives Alphabet, the parent company of Google, a massively controlling influence in the online ad industry. Chrome Browser is intalled by default on every android device. Google is the default search engine on Chrome. And Android devices have a Google search bar on their homepage that doesn't even require you to open your browser. Google can tweak their search algorithm to give certain sites higher visibility. The Google Search Engine and the Chrome Browser gives Alphabet a lot of user data for targeted ads. And Google Adservices lets them put ads within a webpage on top of being able to tweak the search algorithm to give certain sites higher visibility. All 3 of them combined give Alphabet an absolutely **massive** advantage when it comes to the business of online ads. The user data provided by Chrome and the Google Search engine gives Google Adservices a massively unfair advantage compared to their rivals. The FTC is saying Alphabet cannot own a web browser, a search engine, and an online ad service at the same time because of how all 3 create a positive feedback loop to give them a massive advantage over any rival. That's why eventually the FTC is likely to eventually force Amazon to divest themselves of their ad program. Amazon Web Services plus the Amazon Marketplace provide the company with similar user data that they can use to enhance their Ad Service program.

RealJamBear

But that's just it. If we spent less time focusing on Trump and more time focusing on his cabinet and those capitulating to him we could be more effective. We should be focusing on what RFK Jr. Is doing, what Andrew Ferguson (FTC Chair) is doing, what Linda McMahon is doing, etc. We should be calling out Jeff Bezos for giving in to Trump and praising what he was doing by being transparent about tariffs before he caved. It WORKED on Elon. He left DOGE because of the backlash against his companies. Trump is a smokescreen as far as we are concerned. People like Zelensky are handling him brilliantly but they also deal with him directly. Also, Zelensky didn't beat Trump so much as manipulate and out maneuver him - in Trump's mind he won. We need to set our sites on the politicians and business leaders that support Trump and support the ones that stand up to him. Rage against the machine, not the operator. Trump is powerless without those that enable him, and part of the battle is recognizing that liberals/Democrats are part of the machine that is enabling him by focusing our attention on him, by design. Pissing us off and hurting us to get us to retaliate against him is a critical part of his gameplan. Idk if you're familiar with MMO mechanics but basically he's taunting us and tanking all the damage we deal while the rest of his party is destroying us.

Super-Extent-1210

Your time will be in fall this year. After FTC case is settled.

Super-Extent-1210

Meta momentum is back. 750 when Chinese deal is done and 950 by October when it wins the FTC case.

spaacingout

Your first mistake was investing in a monopoly that’s doomed to fail due to fraudulent practices. (FTC class action just one example) Your second mistake was believing Trump represents America. He represents nothing American beyond sheer greed. He’s the worst example of what an American can be, a tyrannical dictator who has proven without any possible doubt, that he cares only for himself, nobody else, he doesn’t care about Americans, he cares about how much he can rob us and subjugate us, divide us and get us fighting with our own kin. And he’s succeeded.

cbusoh66

It's 2029, Trump is now a 3rd term President, The Pope, and the Federal Reserve Chair. Optimus robots have replaced police and military forces, and operate under new "shoot first, ask questions later" Mexico and Canada have declared martial law to prevent massive American illegal immigrants from entering their countries. SPY is trading above 3000 after the elimination of the SEC, FTC, IRS, and most oversight govt agencies.

Most_Newspaper306

this just cannot fucking be. This is the most obvious insider trading BS country and market in the world. People put actual money on this and the fucking FTC does freaking nothing again this BS

Super-Extent-1210

Meta bers are holding to their only hope - the weakest antitrust case from the FTC.

Hacking_the_Gibson

Man, Google is living in the fucking root cellar because of an anti-trust case, and their numbers are actually continuing to get better. Apple has been stagnant for a number of quarters, they are incredibly exposed to tariffs, and now a criminal contempt case stop renewed anti-trust scrutiny to accompany one of the richer multiples on the market? Heck, they are also facing a $20B or so annual hole in their net income if indeed the FTC blocks the Google revenue sharing deal.

Brokenandburnt

That last part has more or less come true. The IRS was understaffed to begin with, and so far DOGE has fired 7k workers, from ~87K. They _want_ to fire 35k more but how they'll justify that I don't know. They have also gutted FTC, for some mysterious reason the department most involved with fraud was hardest hit. On a different note, wasn't Musk under a couple of FTC investigations by any chance? I'm guessing not any longer in any case.

zer0dtez

Zucchini with the 6D chess move saying tariffs won’t affect business. The king will like that and his FTC will gonna drop their case

blufin

Rule of law is tenuous at best now in the US. If Trump doesnt like you, he'll set the DoJ, IRS, FBI and FTC on you to investigate you. The Supreme court wont defend you, and the Republican Congress wont raise a finger to help. You've got to tread carefully to make it out the other side without getting damaged.

Hot-You-7366

oh look two companies that have been in front of the FTC for being monopolies managed to have a good quarter. SURPRISE recession over!

BandicootWestern663

Bull case for TSLA: X/Xai, spaceX, starlink etc. lever up and to buy tesla stock - raising it to ATHs. TSLA, now at ATH, then buys X and spaceX in all-stock transactions, paying a premium for both, that are already valued in the stratosphere. Elmo now has a neural link to Ara in an optimus body giving handys in my cybercab over starlink and collecting data for X to somehow extort more money out of me. Orange man is here, so stock manipulation is ok and the SEC and FTC are on vacation for 4 years. meh, probably inevitable

Prethiraj

Probably told him FTC case will break them up if he doesn't stop

AP9384629344432

It's because Amazon wants to keep buying up other companies and knows the admin can screw up these plans with the FTC. (They thought Lina Khan was the end of their troubles, guess not)

Silent_Road3852

As he hits big tech with FTC lawsuits and massive tariffs lmao

saint_davidsonian

I wasn't really talking about who controls it I was talking about the executive order giving the president power to remove them you twat. This is what the legislation was: For Leaders of Independent Agencies (e.g., SEC, FTC, Federal Reserve, FCC): Removal: These leaders are often protected by law and can only be removed “for cause”, meaning: Neglect of duty Malfeasance Inefficiency The President cannot fire them just because he disagrees with their policies. Example: In Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the President can remove the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but only under certain conditions depending on how Congress set it up. --- 3. Senate-Confirmed Positions: After Appointment: Removal by the President still typically does not require Senate involvement again. Replacements must be confirmed by the Senate again (new appointment and confirmation). --- 4. Congress’s Role in Removal: Congress cannot directly fire any federal agency head. However, Congress can: Pressure a resignation through hearings, subpoenas, or investigations. Impeach federal officials (very rare for agency heads; more common for judges and presidents). House of Representatives votes to impeach. Senate holds the trial and votes to remove (requires 2/3 majority).

saint_davidsonian

Oh I'm sorry let me clarify you twat. For Leaders of Independent Agencies (e.g., SEC, FTC, Federal Reserve, FCC): Removal: These leaders are often protected by law and can only be removed “for cause”, meaning: Neglect of duty Malfeasance Inefficiency The President cannot fire them just because he disagrees with their policies. Example: In Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the President can remove the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but only under certain conditions depending on how Congress set it up. --- 3. Senate-Confirmed Positions: After Appointment: Removal by the President still typically does not require Senate involvement again. Replacements must be confirmed by the Senate again (new appointment and confirmation). --- 4. Congress’s Role in Removal: Congress cannot directly fire any federal agency head. However, Congress can: Pressure a resignation through hearings, subpoenas, or investigations. Impeach federal officials (very rare for agency heads; more common for judges and presidents). House of Representatives votes to impeach. Senate holds the trial and votes to remove (requires 2/3 majority).

Desmater

They doing more buybacks. Best way is Leaps and selling puts. Been sideways for awhile due to FTC lawsuit.

Pure-Honey-463

yes and orange Jesus is getting rid of the FTC and other agencies that protect the pepple. good luck to all.

qaswexort

I thought the whole thing would blow over with the new administration's FTC replacement. Was the recent ruling priced in?

Longjumping_College

Except [they're not just targeting Google](https://rcpmag.com/Articles/2025/03/13/FTC-Expands-Microsoft-Antitrust-Investigation-Under-Trump-Administration.aspx) Its about the AI side tied to search engines > the FTC ordered Microsoft to hand over information about its AI business, going back to 2016. According to Bloomberg (paywalled), which first reported the continued probe this week, the investigation is focused on: > Microsoft's investment in OpenAI and whether it gives the company an unfair advantage in the AI market. > Why Microsoft cut funding for its own AI projects after investing in OpenAI. > Microsoft's cloud software licensing rules, which competitors say make it harder for them to compete. The FTC wants to know if Microsoft's power in other industries gives it an unfair edge in AI and whether its software bundles limit competition. Microsoft invested billions of dollars in OpenAI without telling regulators in advance, read the complaint from the FTC. The FTC is investigating if Microsoft structured the deal in a way to avoid antitrust reviews while still gaining control over OpenAI's direction. "We are working cooperatively with the agency," said Microsoft's Alex Haurek, in a statement to Bloomberg.

irreverentpun

Anyone pricing in FTC lawsuits against Amazon, Meta, Google, and Uber. Secretary sounded confident this morning with Sarah. Also espousing 2020 sins against Trump. Already denied Meta settlement offer.

1600hazenstreet

Their production capacity has been reduced by FAA / FTC from the door mishap.

FarrisAT

Nah this FTC will cut a deal

PrawnProwler

Two ongoing antitrust lawsuits from the FTC against their search engine and advertising practices. Their search engine is still their biggest revenue generator.

Specific-Bet-5634

Google has a massive lawsuit with the FTC right now about being a monopoly on search ads.

MadCervantes

\> The FTC investigated the acquisition and said they weren't competitors. So if the FTC investigates and declares them competitors then that means it's true, right?

OrdinaryMix4013

this FTC chair looks like a big fuken loser

NiceOwner

FTC chair Ferguson says bears are gai, bulls are up

ThinkingOfTheOldDays

this FTC head seems competent. that's unusual.

skymagic

RFK is going to instruct FDA to ban Red Dye 40, then he’s coming steer FTC…bers are fucked 😂

Warden326

Same with the FTC commissioners but he fired them anyways.

thatfinanceguy2

For those stressed many in my industry this is a big deal with the FTC it is as it is no one is getting caught for insider trading The issue comes when you enjoy. That good old wolf of Wall Street cocaine but seriously reading that made me crack up

fmemich

The FTC has the same rule and it didn't stop him.

AdditionalNothing997

What about coursera? When does FTC sue them?

throwawayainteasy

Legally he cannot. The legislation establishing the Fed says he doesn't not work at the pleasure of the President and can only be removed for-cause (ie: breaking the law, showing up to work drunk, etc). But that's also true of lots of other agencies, and Trump has been firing them willy-nilly anyway and making them sue to get their jobs back. A lot of them have put in for injuctions saying they can stay in their jobs until the cases are decided since it's clearly against the law, but courts have said that while they're suing to get back, Trump can kick them out of office and go ahead and replace them in the meantime. Like, literally the FTC has the same laws, there's a SCOTUS case specifically saying POTUS can't fire FTC commissioners, and Trump has "fired" two anyway and courts have done jack shit about it so far. And they're out-of-office with him appointing replacements while the cases are argued. If the courts are consistent, the same thing would happen to JPow. He'd be out of the office and Trump would be allowed to replace him while he sued for his job back. Would SCOTUS ultimately uphold prior precedent or decide since he's part of the Executive branch Trump can ultimately fire him at will? Who knows? If that happens, it's also unclear how they'd treat the rest of his term as Fed Chair were he to win. Does it still expire next year, making his case meaningless because it'll take longer than that to decide? Does the time he was illegally out not count to his term limit? No one really knows.

Griffur

I haven’t looked into the details, but this sounds like either a countervailing duty or anti-dumping duty. Neither of which are actually driven by the President. The sitting President can have some effect on the FTC or DOC and their findings, but it’s supposed to be an apolitical process. I think it’s still a very broken system.

loud-spider

Exactly right. The overlooked piece is destabilization of the labor market to increase uncertainty and instill fear. The goals: Reduce the likelihood that the populous feels comfortable pushing back, making them more passive, and create an economic environment that has people begin to dump non-core assets early to get the best price, kick-starting asset hoovering. The final piece will be the sale of Govt assets and the movement of authority and control from an electable Govt run private sector to the private sector. Deconstructing the public sector into discrete private companies owned by Trump pals shifts control of those functions, assets, and ownership permanently to oligarchy control. The conclusion of this will be the shutting down of competition authorities like the FTC so that monopolies can form and grow unconstrained and uncontrolled.

throwawayainteasy

Legally he cannot. The legislation establishing the Fed says he doesn't not work at the pleasure of the President and can only be removed for-cause. But that's also true of lots of other agencies, and Trump has been firing them willy-nilly anyway and making them sue to get their jobs back. A lot of them have put in for injuctions saying they can stay in their jobs until the cases are decided since it's clearly against the law, but courts have said that while they're suing Trump can go ahead and replace them in the meantime. Like, literally the FTC has the same laws, there's a SCOTUS case specifically saying POTUS can't fire FTC commissioners, and Trump has "fired" two anyway and courts have done jack shit about it so far. And they're out-of-office with him appointing replacements while the cases are argued. If the courts are consistent, the same thing would happen to JPow. He'd be out of the office and Trump would be allowed to replace him while he sued for his job back. If that happens it's unclear how they'd treat the rest of his term as Fed Chair (does it still expire next year, making his case meaningless because it'll take longer than that to decide? Does it get extended by the amount of time he was out? No one really knows.)

throwawayainteasy

It was explicitly illegal for him to fire FTC commissioners, and the laws against doing so were specifically upheld by SCOTUS already. Yet he fired two of them and courts aren't doing shit about it. And he's fired a whole bunch of others with similar statues saying he couldn't and courts have said it's fine for him to replace them while they sue. Markets are dumping because until SCOTUS grows a backbone, laws don't matter.

FroggyHarley

Nope. The Federal Reserve Act says that Fed governors can be removed by the President before the expiration of their terms only “for cause," similar to the laws governing the independence of commissions like the FTC. I'm not saying I'm siding with Trump here. I'm just saying that we can't rely on them following the law here because there is indeed a mechanism that gives the president some authority to fire Fed governors, which Trump will definitely look to exploit.

WickedSensitiveCrew

There isnt much point in going against the sentiment. You just get downvoted into Oblivion. The funny thing is if there was a thread about FTC going after Google, Amazon, META, and other Mag 7 suddenly people remember FTC can bring up weak claims. Uber is hated so not much point is doing that for them in this thread.

xvvxvvxvvxvvx

FTC has become a weapon. Uber next lol

itsamoreh

Did you read the article OP linked as the source? >The agency claims Uber violated the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act by **\[1\]** providing misleading information about its Uber One subscription service, **\[2\]** failing to provide a simple way for users to cancel their membership, and **\[3\]** charging them without their consent. via [https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/21/ftc-sues-uber-says-company-charged-for-uber-one-without-consent.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/21/ftc-sues-uber-says-company-charged-for-uber-one-without-consent.html) I added the numbers. But my situation falls under #3.

WickedSensitiveCrew

Yea I goofed. After reading other comments the sentiment in this sub is to attack Uber. And I was only comment coming off as defending the company. My bad to the thread going against sentiment. If it were Mag 7 maybe then you can defend them against FTC lawsuits.

moorhound

Uber catching a FTC lawsuit. I'm doing the dumb thing and buying puts of a -4% day

Admirable_Nothing

All Uber has to do is simply delay a bit and Trump/Musk/DOGE will lay off all the folks at the FTC and there will be noone left to protect any of us.

itsamoreh

Well I cancelled immediately after I found out but I never said it was not difficult. Uber along with lots of big corps use [dark patterns](https://www.deceptive.design/) that make cancelling way more difficult than it needs to be. It was getting so bad that [at the end of 2024 the FTC came out with a "click-to-cancel" rule](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring).

StocksStormTrooper

FTC is suing UBER… it’s about fucking time.. they cheat the hell out of both the driver and the passengers

FroggyHarley

I mean, he wasn’t supposed to be able to fire the two FTC Dem Commissioners without cause either. But look at where we are...

WBigly-Reddit

Report it- FTC investigating online censorship https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2025-0023-0001

liberalindianguy

Speaking of unreasonably difficult to cancel subscription- when is FTC suing Audible? I literally had to cancel my credit card to stop their subscription.

MorrowDisca

UK here. Myself an several people I know were signed up to Uber One without consent. That being said cancelling and getting a refund was a very simple process. Glad to see the FTC are taking action. Hopefully similar action will be taken in other jurisdictions.

TheGoodSurgeon

FTC: Let me drop Uber some more 

CUTON1C

# US FTC it takes action against Uber for deceptive billing and cancellation practices

Airilsai

Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter of the FTC. There's two for you. 

AcademicStandard3701

He fired the head guy over FTC and FEC what’s stopping him to fire J pow

throwawayainteasy

Usually the settlement would also include actions for companies to take to address the condition. Like, supposedly the FTC settlement offer required them to sell off Whatsapp and some other product I can't remember (Maybe Instagram?). The settlement money is basically a "damages" payment, plus they take whatever actions the settlement demands to correct the issue. But they don't have to admit any fault or go to trial.

throwawayainteasy

SCOTUS already explicitly ruled back in like the 30s that POTUS can't fire FTC commissioners except for reasons Congress established, but Mango still fired two FTC commissioners and courts have done jack shit about it.

throwawayainteasy

He's also arguably doing it with Meta right now. The FTC is suing Meta for illegal monopolization. The originally asked for something like $30 billion as part of a settlement offer. Meta declined. Zuck donated to the inauguration, super Pacs, and has been to Mar-a-Lago a bunch. Presumably to curry some favor. But it apparently hasn't worked. [He offered to settle for $450 million in March reportedly indicated that Trump was on his side and they should take it.](https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/mark-zuckerberg-meta-antitrust-ftc-negotiations-a53b3382) But, the FTC declined and said any settlement offer would have to be at least $18 billion or the case was going forward. Trying to buy favors with the Administration has not worked out so well so far for Zuck. They've been taking his money but so far haven't meaningfully helped him.

PM_artsy_fartsy_nude

That didn't at the FTC, and DOGE is already embedded at the SEC. What is JPOW supposed to do, exactly?

Lanky-Custard-3410

I bought puts that expire a few weeks after the trial is due to end, mostly as a hedge for my META stock. I am up pretty big on the stocks after a few years, but I don't want to cash out because of long term gains taxes. I did buy a few puts that should print if they are forced to divest. If instagram and whatsapp are taken from meta, I don't know if the company survives. However, the FTC's case doesn't seem very strong to my peasant ears. Mewe and Snapchat are considered to be the only other companies in the sector that Meta has monopolized. TikTok, YouTube, and X are not considered competitors in this case. Some lawsuit slides that were leaked show Meta competing with TikTok and YouTube, even next door, yet those companies are not considered to be social networks. Instagram and whatsapp both still exist. They were not purchased and killed like in other monopolies. Meta has faced massive lawsuits and scandals in the past. To my untrained mind, this new one doesn't appear to be any worse than the others. I am more worried about Cuck being a psychopath and losing his best employees because they have empathy and morals. I am also more worried about the overall economy dealing with instability. Meta is down, but how much of that is from market uncertainty and how much of that is from the trial? Option data shows that people are still bullish on meta.

JPMorgansStache

Donald John Trump and his cryptocurrency firm World Liberty Financial (and joint venture with his Russian and Middle Eastern envoy Steve Witkoff, with all of their sons) has explicitly stated their goal is to replace the Federal Reserve - as an institution - not just replacing Jerome Powell or any individual Federal Reserve chairman. If they are allowed to proceed, then Donald John Trump and his children will have digital, physical, and political control over all of the Federal financial and monetary infrastructure from computers, offices, and staff, across the Treasury, Federal Reserve, SEC, FTC, DOJ, FBI, etc. The stock market would be the least of our concerns if and when they are able to fully effectuate this program. Imagine going for a loan, and Barron Trump is the underwriter. Or Don Jr. goes on a bender and raises rates to 29% one night.

throwawayainteasy

Legally, he can't fire FTC commissioners either. And, in the 30's, [SCOTUS explicitly ruled that POTUS doesn't have the power to fire FTC commissioners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._United_States) for any reason other than those laid out by Congress. [Yet he fired two FTC commissioners this term](https://apnews.com/article/trump-ftc-firings-bedoya-slaughter-488bfe5419e48d5acbd95d3f9401404b), and so far the courts haven't stepped in to stop it. They also haven't stopped him from firing other positions he's legally not allowed to fire due to similarly-worded laws as those prohibiting him from firing FTC commissioners.

tubular_radical

I’ve read Casey Newton’s reporting and the FTC case seems weak.

Heavy_Chest_8888

In Facebook/Meta's current state and business, it would be challenging for FTC to prove the company has a monopoly. So the FTC is also using an angle of Facebook being a social media site for friends, families and relatives. In this context, they did appear to have a monopoly back then especially considering Zuck's discussion about buying up Whatsapp before it got bigger and expanded into another social media site like Facebook. However, Zuck and his team are reportedly quite confident that FTC will lose the case, which is why they dared to lowball them with only $450 million, and later raised to $1 billion settlement before the matter proceeded to court.

Spins13

Knowing how weak FTC cases are and how they consistently lose every one of them, I am not too worried for anyone they sue. Their chair is basically a whining child constantly throwing tantrums to seek attention, a bit like 🥭

HorrorGradeCandy

Man, I’ve been holding a small META position since late 2022, and this FTC stuff makes me nervous but also kinda intrigued. Every time they get dragged into court, it feels like the market panics at first, then forgets about it a week later. I remember during that whole VR/metaverse hype, I bought in way too high thinking I was early to the next big thing... and then watched it drop like a rock. Sat on it for months thinking I made a huge mistake, but then they shifted focus back to ads and AI, and the stock started crawling back. Felt like I was riding a rollercoaster blindfolded. Now with this trial, I’m torn. On one hand, government heat is never great news, but on the other, if Zuck pulls off another pivot or wins in court, this thing might bounce. I’m not going all in or anything, but might grab a few more shares on the dip if it keeps sliding. I’ve learned not to bet the farm on any single play, but hey, if I’m gonna lose money, might as well be on a company that keeps making headlines. What’s everyone else thinking? Sit tight or YOLO on the next red candle?

MakeOSUGreatAgain63

The FTC originally approved this purchase. You can’t get mad that he took garbage and turned it to gold. Twice. TikTok is strong competition. Monopoly argument is laughable. This is nothing but a shakedown

Signedupcuzofgme

I thought the FTC trial won’t mean anything, but clearly it’s affecting the stock. The weekend when techs like the chips and phones got their tariffs pardoned, I figured Monday would be green. Everything went sort of green but meta went straight red. Lost 7k that day. I cut my losses which was good because it was red the whole week.

indicisivedivide

An IPO opportunity. He could cut a deal with FTC, avoid fines and spin off before court decision.

cosmic_backlash

>Google acquired YouTube in 2006 for $1.65 billion, eliminating a major competitor to its own Google Video platform. It would have gone broke without Google and just collapsed. >Google purchased DoubleClick in 2008 for $3.1 billion, strengthening its dominance in online advertising and reducing competition in the ad tech space. Google and Doubleclick didn't compete. It just supercharged its ads business. The FTC investigated the acquisition and said they weren't competitors. >Google bought Android Inc. in 2005, securing a foothold in the mobile operating system market and outmaneuvering potential rivals. This, ironically, prevented a monopoly from Apple The others didn't really do anything. Like the Fitbit acquisition was terrible. They bought a dying product and it still died. It's not illegal to waste money. If you just think acquisitions should be banned just start with that.

JPMorgansStache

Trump does not care about the interest rates per say. His interest in the Federal Reserve is in seizing total control of it under his cryptocurrency firm (co-owned by his sons and Steve Witkoff and his sons) - World Liberty Financial. This is explicitly stated in their "Gold Paper" which is publicly available, where they layout the plan to replace the Federal Reserve and other democratic monetary mechanisms of the federal government. They already have control of the Treasury General Fund, the SEC, FTC, DOJ, FBI, CISA, and basically any other regulatory arm which should stop this. DOGE was used as a cover to connect the backend cyber systems and digital infrastructure which allows Trump to essentially, at his own discretion now, print money, change interest rates, rig IPO's, bailout companies or industries, and eventually control every cent Americans call our currency. To imagine this more fully, consider that by the end of this term, if Trump gets his way, the central banker(s) of the United States could be Eric & Donald Trump Jr. They will, if not stopped, continue onward until all borrowing is through them, and it's possible that debtors will be sent to El Salvador to rot in a slave labor camp. This is worst of all possible worlds, but this is why Trump wants to remove Powell. They have been planning this for years now.

thatkid1010101

Haven’t heard any bad news about Amazon.. wonder what deal he made with 🥭 TSLA, NVDA, Meta, and Google are all fighting overvaluation and actual company problems (FTC litigation, Elmo DOGE involvement, or losing 13% of your annual revenue cause no more Chyna) + Tariffs & the impending future economic turmoil There’s no way this is the bottom

Cyclejerks

I’ll preface by stating that I’ve spoken to both the head litigator for the spirit merger and the economists form the FTC who did the research finding that their was going to be anticompetitive behavior in this space. no matter what happens they will have to justify a High HHI score the FTC. They got fucked with spirit because of a high HHI on regional airports post merger. Which airline doesn’t compete in the low cost regional airports post merger space? What airline doesn’t compete mostly international travel and won’t impact the low cost regional airport space? Answer those questions and you got yourself an answer. Then again, we are living in trump land. I honestly think if there is a recession net blue is better off because the big boys will be hit harder due to higher pricing structure. That being said, regional airports will be hit harder since regional air travel will be replaced by cheap fucks who want to drive.

wilkonk

> Everything else unconstitutional trump has done so far have been within the bounds of legal argument He fired those FTC commissioners illegally, same thing (less harmful, but legally the same)

throwawayainteasy

What's crazy to me is that's even true for the FTC commissioners he fired. [Humphrey's Executor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._United_States) was specifically about the ability of POTUS to fire FTC commissioners at-will, and SCOTUS held that he didn't have the authority. They held that POTUS could only fire them for reasons Congress allowed via statute. And despite that specific ruling about those specific positions directly applicable to today, so far the courts are still letting him fire the FTC commissioners and move forward with replacing them while the underlying case is litigated over whether or not he has the authority to do it.

FomtBro

The same way he put Tariffs on, even though that's congressional, or fired the heads of NCUA, FTC, MSPB, and NLRB. Also, he can just have Powell murdered at his desk if he wants. Who's going to stop him? You?

throwawayainteasy

It was against the law for him to fire a bunch of IGs without notifying congress and giving individual explainations, it was illegal for him to fire the NLRB members, it was illegal for him to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, and it was both illegal and explicitly contrary to prior SCOTUS precedent for him to fire FTC commissioners, but he did all that shit anyway and is just letting the fired folks fight it out in Court vs his claim that the laws limiting him are unconsitutional. They're not looking for loopholes. They DGAF what the laws are.

ChipKellysShoeStore

Trump has fired independent directors at the NCUA, FTC, MSPB, and NLRB. Those directors are as protected as the Fed is, legally. They just don’t have the same impact or media profile as the FOMC/Fed chair does

Feltzinclasp5

You know they're on trial vs the FTC right? The people here who don't even do a Google search before they buy is really astounding. You deserve to lose money lol

FaceMcShooty1738

Why? The (FTC is also an independent agency)[https://apnews.com/article/trump-ftc-firings-bedoya-slaughter-488bfe5419e48d5acbd95d3f9401404b]

Aravinda82

Lol when has that stopped Trump? If the SC rules in Trump’s favor on the FTC commissioners case, door will be wide open for Trump to fire Powell before May 2026.

fomoandyoloandnogrow

META baby *As for Meta, one part of today’s Google ruling may encourage the social network. A key part of the Federal Trade Commission’s case against Meta is that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were “anticompetitive,” done to neutralize potential competitors. That’s similar to the Justice Department’s argument that Google’s acquisition of two ad tech firms, DoubleClick in 2008 and Admeld in 2011, were anticompetitive. But that was one part of the Google case that the judge dismissed. And she did so citing the fact that the government allowed both acquisitions to close after completing the antitrust review. The same thing happened with Meta: Following antitrust reviews, the FTC permitted both the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions to go forward in 2012 and 2014, respectively. The Google judge also noted that when Google bought DoubleClick, it didn’t have a monopoly in the ad tech market, and that it bought Admeld to “fill a gap in its portfolio” rather than to snuff the smaller company out. You could argue that both points also apply to the Meta acquisitions in question.* Back to 600 end of trial 

RebelGrin

"Can Trump fire Powell? For his part, Powell has pointedly noted that removing a Fed chair is “not permitted under the law,” and has said he intends to serve out the remainder of his term. However, that legal protection, which comes as a result of the Fed’s status as an independent government institution, may be an open question. Trump has fired two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission, also a long-independent agency, arguing that their “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my administration’s priorities,” according to a Wall Street Journal report of a letter Trump sent to them. On Wednesday, Trump fired two Democrats on the three-member board of the National Credit Union Administration, a federal insurer and regulator of credit unions. Todd Harper, one of the officials dismissed by Trump, said in a post on LinkedIn that his firing “is wrong.” US stocks dropped early Thursday after President Donald Trump lashed out at Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on social media. Related article Stocks are mixed as Trump lashes out at Powell “It violates the bipartisan statutory framework adopted by Congress to protect credit union members and their deposits. The Trump Administration’s attack also undermines the independence, balance and important work of the NCUA,” Harper wrote. “If a President can fire an NCUA Board member at any time, how will we maintain public trust in our nation’s financial services regulatory system?” Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is expected to revisit a case that could severely weaken the Fed’s independence."

SamuelYosemite

The Fed is an independent agency, I think he would need the supreme to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which protected from FDR trying to fire someone at the FTC. Of course the dishonorable Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would…

eromynAwonKtnoDI

Mark Zuckerberg’s of $META political connections reportedly resulted in Meta only having to pay $450 million, instead of $30 billion that the FTC demanded to settle an antitrust case against them, per WSJ

cryptoairball

I think you’re confusing the DOJ and the FTC