tyyreaunn: imashark: [Fark user image 640x140]

The statement from the defendant clearly shows that the issue is VR not Fitness Apps. They're rubbing it in the FTC's face with this statement.

So the judge's idiotic reasoning that if Meta doesn't operate in one VERY SPECIFIC VERTICAL of an industry when acquiring a company that occupies a hybrid vertical (VR + fitness), that doesn't constitute potential harmful market consolidation?

Hoo boy.

I'm... not sure you understand what's going on here.  The "idiotic reasoning" making VR fitness apps its own market is the FTC's argument, not the judge's or Meta's.  A large portion of the FTC's case was providing evidence to establish that the market for VR fitness apps is distinct from VR apps overall - different user demographics, pricing strategies, etc.  The FTC was trying to define the market narrowly, to show that Within currently has substantial market share.

Meta wants to define the market as "all VR apps", as per their statement - because then, Within has a much smaller market share, hurting the case that acquiring them is anti-competitive.

It sounds like the part you're disagreeing with is the FTC's argument, not Meta's.  Which is odd, because the article itself states that defining the market narrowly was a win for the FTC, and could help them in future cases, for the reasons stated above.