Beyond American Borders: Why the FTC’s Case Against WhatsApp Matters Globally

COMMENTARY

As the Federal Trade Commission’s landmark antitrust trial against Meta begins, American regulators are focused on a seemingly straightforward question: Did Mark Zuckerberg’s company illegally suppress competition by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp? While this case appears centered on U.S. competition policy, the consequences of a potential WhatsApp divestiture stretch far beyond American borders.

The FTC’s argument centers on Meta’s alleged “buy or bury” approach to competition, with a solution that would force Meta to sell both Instagram and WhatsApp. This approach, however, overlooks a crucial reality: WhatsApp isn’t just another messaging app, it’s critical infrastructure for much of the developing world.

A forced divestiture would not simply reshape the U.S. tech landscape; it could destabilize essential services in countries that have come to rely on WhatsApp as a backbone of public health, commerce and financial inclusion.

The numbers are staggering: India has 850 million users and Indonesia has over 100 million. In Brazil, the app has reached almost universal adoption, with 98% of smartphone users having it installed. These aren’t just statistics; they represent societies where WhatsApp has been integrated into fundamental aspects of public life.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and global institutions used WhatsApp to reach people with lifesaving information. The World Health Organization deployed a WhatsApp-based alert system in multiple languages, designed to reach as many as 2 billion people. South Africa’s government used it as a real-time public health hotline. Health agencies in Israel, Brazil and Indonesia followed suit, using the platform to deliver accurate, timely updates.

In many low- and middle-income countries, WhatsApp has evolved into a trusted financial tool, crucial to financial infrastructure. In Kenya, where traditional banking infrastructure is limited, small business owners describe living “a WhatsApp life,” using the platform to execute, market and manage their operations. In Indonesia, government-led financial literacy programs use WhatsApp groups to reach underserved communities.

These are not isolated examples; they reflect how digital platforms have become integral to everyday life.

What might happen if WhatsApp were forced to separate from Meta? The consequences could include disruption to public health communication systems, interruption of financial inclusion initiatives, and destabilization of small businesses in developing economies.

While a divested WhatsApp would continue to exist, its development roadmap, security updates and integration with other services could be undermined or delayed. That uncertainty will be felt most acutely not in Silicon Valley boardrooms, but in Nairobi pharmacies, São Paulo markets, and Jakarta classrooms.

None of this suggests Meta’s acquisition of WhatsApp was without competitive concerns.

There are legitimate questions about whether these purchases eliminated potential competitors. As someone who has consistently advocated for stronger intellectual property protections that promote innovation while ensuring healthy market dynamics, I believe competition policy plays a vital role in safeguarding the tech landscape.

However, effective regulation demands proportionate remedies that address domestic concerns without triggering global disruption.

The FTC’s case echoes broader geopolitical trends. Just as U.S. semiconductor policy reverberates in Taipei and Seoul, and artificial intelligence regulations in Washington shape norms in Brussels and Tokyo, American antitrust enforcement will ripple across the globe.

WhatsApp is not just a U.S. product; it is global public infrastructure. The FTC must consider both the competitive landscape and the infrastructural dependence that billions of people have developed around these platforms.

As this case proceeds, regulators must remember that WhatsApp now forms the backbone of essential services for billions of people outside America.

Competition matters, but so does the welfare of those who depend on these services for their livelihoods, health and financial inclusion. The FTC has a responsibility to consider both.

Arvin Patel is chief licensing officer of New Segments at Nokia. As an inventor and leading voice on entertainment and tech innovation, he has overseen R&D and IP for some of the world’s leading companies, driving technology investments and creating nontraditional strategies to develop products and services. He can be reached by email.

Jeannette Wang is earning her B.A. in political science at Stanford University studying democracy and technology. Previously, she worked at the Federal Communications Commission and as chair of Stanford Democracy Day. She can be reached by email.