In a high-profile testimony delivered Tuesday in Washington, D.C., Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom painted a candid and critical picture of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, alleging that Zuckerberg intentionally restricted Instagram’s growth in order to protect Facebook’s dominance. The statement was made as part of the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust lawsuit aimed at breaking up Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
Systrom testified that despite Instagram’s significant success since its $1 billion acquisition in 2012, its growth trajectory was repeatedly constrained by Zuckerberg’s strategic decisions. “We were a threat to their growth,” Systrom stated. “If Instagram didn’t grow as quickly, Facebook wouldn’t shrink as quickly, or plateau as quickly.”
He alleged that Zuckerberg systematically withheld engineering support and integration tools that would have accelerated Instagram’s rise, fearing it could cannibalize Facebook’s user base. One of the more revealing moments in Systrom’s testimony was his account of Meta’s pivot to video—during which Facebook received 300 employees to support the initiative, while Instagram received none. Even amid Meta’s multibillion-dollar investment in user safety following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Systrom said Instagram saw “zero” of those resources.
Systrom also testified that, shortly before his and co-founder Mike Krieger’s resignation in 2018, Zuckerberg pulled support for features that would have further promoted Instagram across Facebook’s platforms. According to Systrom, internal rationale at the time centered on curbing Instagram’s momentum.
“He was very happy to have Instagram in the family,” Systrom acknowledged. “But also, I think as the founder of Facebook, he felt a lot of emotion around which one was better… I think there were real human emotional things going on.”
During cross-examination, Meta’s attorney, Kevin Huff, introduced a past email in which Systrom praised Facebook’s integration tools for helping Instagram grow. When asked whether he had misled Zuckerberg in that message, Systrom’s curt reply was, “Sir.”
The testimony follows Zuckerberg’s own appearance last week, where he defended the acquisition, asserting that Instagram’s success was largely due to Meta’s infrastructure. The divergent accounts now form a pivotal element of the FTC’s argument that Meta retained market dominance not through innovation, but through anti-competitive practices.
As proceedings continue, the trial offers rare insight into the complex dynamics between two of Silicon Valley’s most influential founders. With the future of Meta’s corporate structure at stake, the case could redefine the regulatory landscape for tech industry mergers and acquisitions.