Welcome back to Squawk on the Street here from Washington. Regulation is top of mind as leaders from around the globe convene for the World Bank and IMF spring meetings. Joining me now is one regulator, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for taking the time. I feel like everybody's trying, all the investors and businesses are trying to figure you out and just how different you are from former FTC Chair Lina Khan. How would you answer that?
I am different. Look, I want vigorous antitrust enforcement. Competition is what makes America great. It's how we innovate. It's how we grow. Monopoly is not good for innovation. How we protect against monopolies, antitrust. But I want clarity and I want certainty for businesses. I want businesses to know that when you send a deal to the FTC, we're going to look at it quickly and the timeline that Congress gave us. If we think it's illegal and we can win in court, we're going to go to court. And if we don't, we're getting out of the way as quickly as possible. Deal flow is part of how this country grows. It's how capital moves to innovators who have great ideas. M&A is part of how we have that capital flow. It's how we protect that capital flow. I am in favor of deal flow, but I'm in favor of antitrust enforcement, too. So, you know, I want to enforce the antitrust laws, but if they aren't being violated, we got to get out of the way.
You think she wasn't in favor of deal flow?
Look, I think that the previous administration generally was very suspicious of mergers and acquisitions, was very, very suspicious. I am not at all. I am pro-antitrust enforcement and I am pro-innovation and growth. And we have to strike that balance. And that's what we're going to do.
Feel like investors got all excited about the deregulation, especially in places like the FTC primarily. But then, you know, the administration, the DOJ comes and blocks the deal. And now you're in court with Meta to try to break them up. And they're wondering how much deregulation we're actually going to have.
Well, we're going to have lots of deregulation. President issued an EO directing me and the FTC to lead the charge on getting rid of anti-competitive regulations. We've asked the public to tell us what the anti-competitive regulations are. We're going to be asking agency heads to give us all of their regulations that they think are anti-competitive. And then we're sending a list to the White House recommending deletion of anti-competitive regulations. So we're all about deregulation, and we're all about following the rule of law and antitrust. And that's what the case is about. If the deal is illegal, if someone is engaged in anti-competitive behavior and we can win in court, we're going to court. And that's what vigorous antitrust enforcement is about. But we want certainty and clarity. And that's what the deregulatory agenda is about.
You did take the first big enforcement action this week when you sued Uber, excuse me, for one of its programs, basically where you accuse them of making customers pay for a certain service. They say they were totally transparent about it and are going to fight you in court. What was the message here?
We're very confident about the case. And look, like all Americans, the FTC's job is to meet consumers where they are. All of us are consumers and we're all subscribers. All of us have tons of online subscriptions. Congress has passed laws protecting all of us when we are engaging with companies that have online subscriptions, both when we sign up and when we try to cancel. And if companies are breaking that law, it's called ROSCA, we're going to take them to court. And that's what the Uber case is about. This isn't, you know, like a campaign or anything. If we think there are clear violations of this law that's designed to protect consumers when they are subscribers, which all of us are, we're ready to go to court. And that's what that's about.
I mean, interestingly, Dara Khosrowshahi, the CEO, did contribute to President Trump's inaugural fund. Some CEOs saw that as a down payment to help protect them from regulation, potentially. I'm not saying that that was necessarily the case, but what's your message there?
My message is that my job is to enforce the laws without fear or favor. And that's what I'm going to do. If we think someone is breaking the law and we can prove it in court, we're going to go to court. But otherwise the FTC is part of the President's deregulatory agenda. And look, you know, taking someone to court for breaking a law that Congress passed isn't regulation. That's just law enforcement. That's just cop on the beat type stuff. That's what the Uber case is about. That's what the Meta case is about. That's the mission of the FTC.
All right. So let's talk about the Meta case because this is the second week now in court. How do you think it's going?
I think it's going great. Yeah. Very confident. For the government. Yes.
Why? What do you think you are able to prove there?
I think that we're going to be able to prove that when Facebook acquired Instagram and WhatsApp, it did so to suppress competition. And one of the markets that's most important to American consumers, all of us saw in 2020 how much power these platforms have, not just over our economic lives, over our social lives, our political discourse, you know, our elections. All of us saw how powerful these companies are. That's what this case is about. It's about protecting Americans from the incredible market power of these companies, and making sure that companies are competing with each other on the merits. So we get innovation and growth.
I think the one thing that's puzzling businesses is the fact that you are relitigating deals that happen more than a decade ago and that it ultimately, if you do win, then that sets a really bad precedent and could create a lot of uncertainty that past deals are now going to be dug up potentially and ruled against.
Yeah, this is exceedingly rare. The agencies have done this before, but it is very rare. Meta is different. This is one of the most powerful companies on the planet. And we saw that power on full display in 2020. And that's why this litigation that President Trump began in his first term, we're seeing through to completion. Meta is different. And I think that's just a very simple 2020.
I mean, that was a different time. That was when conservatives were blaming Meta for Trump losing the election. A lot has changed since then. And now we have TikTok. We have all of these competitors.
So I don't think that landscape, I don't think a lot has changed about Meta's market power. And that's our theory. And look, yes, markets do change over time. Meta's power in the relevant market has not changed since 2020. And that's what this case is really about. It's about confronting a powerful company that got more powerful by buying competitors rather than just competing on the merits. And again, look, we're not relitigating a merger. The merger was not originally litigated in 2012. And that merger happened during the Obama administration, when the Obama administration was being very open about the fact that it wanted an alliance between the Democratic Party and Big Tech. And, you know, I just don't think that that should be a barrier to us confronting powerful companies who are hurting American consumers.
The other argument is that the competition is now fiercely global. And there was an op-ed yesterday. We have a piece of it from a former Trump ambassador, Obama ambassador O'Brien, talking about the stakes, especially against China and what message this sends. Breaking up American tech gives China the lead. The United States must preserve the ability of our greatest tech companies to compete globally. And, he says a victory for the government would actually be a real big victory for Tencent and for ByteDance. Why is that wrong?
I think he's wrong. Look, the way that America is going to defeat China in our global race for economic supremacy is if we are competitive and we are innovating, and the way America innovates is by promoting competition. And so that is the FTC's job is to make sure American companies are innovating. And the way we innovate is protecting competition. And big tech companies have been using this argument for a while that they need to be left alone in order to compete. I think the way America competes is by being competitive domestically. That's how we innovate. It's giving other companies a chance to break into markets, not to be obstructed by monopolies. And that's what the Meta case is about.
But you've gone after the European regulation a little bit, right? The Digital Services and Markets Act. I mean, they don't have big tech champions. And a lot of people think it's because of overregulation. We do, we have these crown jewels. Why do you want to mess with that and break that up?
So I don't like European regulation that appears to be aimed at American companies. But I also recognize that the only way America is going to continue to compete globally is if we're competitive domestically. Because that's how innovation happens in America is through competition. And so I think it's important for American law enforcers like me to protect competition, to promote innovation. I don't favor European regulation that appears aimed directly at American companies. But I do want to promote American competition domestically here at home.
The other thing that's changed a lot from 2020 is Mark Zuckerberg has become much closer with President Trump. The contributions, the visits to Mar-a-Lago and the White House. Dana White, you know, very close to Trump friend is now on the Meta board. Was this, has this been a factor at all for you in this case?
Look, I have a very good relationship with the president. And I think that the fact that we're in the second week of trial, that sort of speaks for itself.
Did the president approach you about dropping the case?
I'm not going to talk about my discussions with the president, you know, who's my boss, but I have a good relationship with him, and we're in our second week of trial. I think that says everything that needs to be said.
Is it true that Mark Zuckerberg came to you offering a settlement of up to $1 billion?
Look, we had, it's a big case. There's always settlement negotiations. There were settlement negotiations. But I think it's very important in order to protect American consumers that we see this case through. And that's why we're in the second week of trial.
