Meta will face off against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Monday in a high-stakes antitrust trial that could result in the company divesting Instagram and WhatsApp.

The trial in Washington is expected to last weeks and centers around the FTC’s allegations that Meta monopolizes the personal social networking market. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former COO Sheryl Sandberg, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom and other current and former Meta executives are expected to testify, along with top brass from rivals TikTok, Snap and Google’s YouTube, according to a legal filing.

The FTC claims Meta shouldn’t have been allowed to buy Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014, and the agency is calling for those units to be sliced off from the Menlo Park, California, company.

“Acquiring these competitive threats has enabled Facebook to sustain its dominance—to the detriment of competition and users—not by competing on the merits, but by avoiding competition,” the FTC said in a legal filing.

Meta disagrees and filed a pretrial brief last week reiterating its arguments that it is not a monopoly and that acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp has not harmed competition. 

The trial will test the boundaries of the U.S.’s antitrust laws pertaining to corporate acquisitions, said Prasad Krishnamurthy, a law professor at U.C. Berkeley Law. The FTC will have to prove that not only did Meta monopolize the social media market but that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp actively “harmed competition.”  

“It’s a big case because it involves Meta, a social media giant, and it involves one of the most important kind of markets in the world, the social media market,” Krishnamurthy said. “It has big implications for something that consumers use as part of their daily life, Instagram and WhatsApp.”

The FTC filed its antitrust case against Meta in 2020, but judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington dismissed the case in 2021, saying the agency did not have enough evidence to prove “Facebook holds market power.” 

Despite the dismissal, the FTC in August 2021 filed an amended complaint with more details about the company’s user numbers and metrics relative to competitors like Snapchat, the now-defunct Google+ social network and Myspace. After reviewing the amendments, Boasberg in 2022 ruled that the case could proceed, saying the FTC had presented more details than before. 

“Although the agency may well face a tall task down the road in proving its allegations, the Court believes that it has now cleared the pleading bar and may proceed to discovery,” Boasberg wrote.

Meta motioned to end the case last April, but Boasberg denied it, ruling in November that the company must face trial. In a small victory for Meta, however, Boasberg did dismiss the FTC’s allegation that Facebook restricted third-party app developers’ access to its platform to maintain market dominance.

The company is expected to push back on the rest of the FTC’s allegations at trial on Monday. In a recent pre-trial brief, Meta’s lawyers wrote that the FTC fails to acknowledge that the company competes with numerous rivals, including TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s iMessage.

But the FTC’s core argument is that the company has monopolized the specific market of personal social networking, saying there are no major alternatives to Meta’s apps like Facebook and Instagram, which are used by people to stay up to date and communicate with friends and family in an online, shared-social space.

This disputed notion of the market that Meta operates and competes in could be crucial to the case’s outcome, Krishnamurthy said.

“When you look at antitrust cases, the market definition that comes out of the case, even what ends up being the one that determines the ruling, is often not anything remotely like how lay people or even businesses in that market will describe it,” Krishnamurthy said.

With the tech industry in particular, Khan brought an antitrust case against Amazon in 2023 and unsuccessfully sued to block Meta, Nvidia and Microsoft’s acquisitions of virtual reality startup Within, chip-design giant Arm and Activision Blizzard, respectively.

Though this case kicked off during Trump’s first time in office, Khan continued to pursue it during the Biden administration, telling a House Committee in May 2024 that the lawsuit “highlights the competitive importance of data and notes that privacy degradation can constitute an antitrust harm.”

Some legal experts have said that Trump’s pick of Ferguson could mean the FTC eases up on antitrust enforcement.

Zuckerberg has courted favor with the Trump administration as part of a broader policy change within Meta. The social media baron has reportedly met with the president at least three times since January, he attended Trump’s inauguration and he co-hosted a ball for the president in Washington.

Khan told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in early Jan. that she hopes the new Trump Administration won’t give Meta a “sweetheart deal” in the FTC case after Zuckerberg’s overtures to the White House.

Ferguson, however, has not indicated that the FTC plans to abandon its case, and in March, he told CNBC that his team has a “trial coming up” and that they are “pressing toward that.”

“My job is to make sure that everyone is complying with the antitrust laws,” Ferguson said. “And if they aren’t, we go to court.”

Ferguson is painting himself as an independent and is proceeding with trial outside of the broader political world, said George Hay, an antitrust law professor at Cornell Law School. Hay added that he’s pleased that Ferguson appears to be moving forward with the case despite much of its progress occurring during the Biden Administration.

“When you come in to the FTC, you inherit a staff of professionals who’ve been doing a lot of work, and it’s not that easy just to say, ‘Throw it all away,'” Hay said.

WATCH: Apple, Meta to face lighter fines under EU digital law.

Though U.S. President Donald Trump’s 90-day pause on many of his “reciprocal tariffs” has given some firms and investors respite, America’s largest company, Apple, hasn’t been so lucky. 

The Cupertino-based tech giant is heavily reliant on supply chains in China, which has seen its levies only continue to ramp up, with the U.S.’ cumulative tariff rate on Chinese goods now standing at 145%.

Thus, despite the U.S. trade situation looking more promising for much of the world, experts say that U.S.-China negotiations remain the most important variable for Apple.

“Apple could be set back many years by these tariffs,” Dan Ives, global head of technology research at Wedbush Securities, told CNBC, adding that the company had “had their boat flipped over in the ocean with no life rafts.”

The smartphone maker has been diversifying its supply chain from China for years, but out of the 77 million iPhones it shipped to the U.S. last year, nearly 80% came from China, according to data from Omdia. 

The tech-focused research firm estimates that under current tariffs, Apple could be forced to increase its prices on phones sold to the U.S. from China by around 85% in order to maintain its margins.

“When the original China tariffs were at 54%, that kind of impact was serious, but manageable … but, it wouldn’t make financial sense for Apple to raise prices based on the current tariffs,” said Le Xuan Chiew, research manager at Omdia.

Apple reportedly shipped 600 tons of iPhones, or as many as 1.5 million units, from India to the U.S. before Trump’s new tariffs took effect, according to Reuters and The Times of India.

Apple and two of its iPhone producers did not respond to a CNBC inquiry. 

Chiew said while this news is unconfirmed, stockpiling would’ve been the best option for the company to quickly mitigate the tariff impacts and buy themselves some time. 

However, it’s not clear how long such stockpiles could last, especially as consumers increase iPhone purchases in anticipation of higher prices, he added. 

According to Omdia, Apple’s medium-term strategy has been to reduce exposure to geopolitical and tariff-related risks, and it has appeared to focus on increasing iPhone production and exports from India. 

Trump’s temporary halt will likely push tariffs on India to a baseline of 10% — at least for now — giving it a more favorable entry into the U.S. 

However, the build-up of iPhone manufacturing in India has been a yearslong process. Indian iPhone manufacturers only began producing Apple’s top-of-the-line Pro and Pro Max iPhone models for the first time last year. 

According to Chiew, ramping up enough production in India to satisfy demand could take at least one or two years and is not without its own tariff risks. 

This is something the company had received — to an extent — during the first Trump administration, with some analysts believing it could happen again this time around. 

“I still see some potential relief that can come in the form of concessions for Apple based upon its $500 billion U.S. commitment,” said Daniel Newman, CEO of The Futurum Group. “This hasn’t been discussed much — but I’m optimistic that companies that commit to U.S. expansion may see some form of relief as negotiations progress.” 

Apple said in February that it would invest $500 billion in the U.S., creating 20,000 jobs.

Still, Trump has been clear that he believes Apple can make iPhones in the U.S.— though analysts have doubts about the plan. Wedbush analyst Ives has predicted that an iPhone would cost $3,500 if produced in the U.S. instead of the more typical $1,000.

Meanwhile, other analysts say that even a trade deal or tariff exemption may not be enough for Apple to avoid adverse business effects.

“Let’s assume that there is at least some thaw coming, either in a moderation of reciprocal tariffs targeting China or in a special exemption for Apple,” said Craig Moffett, co-founder and senior analyst at equity research publisher MoffettNathanson.

“That still wouldn’t solve the problem. Even a 10% baseline tariff poses an enormous challenge for Apple.”

Tesla shares slumped on Thursday, reversing course a day after the electric vehicle maker had its biggest gain on the market since 2013.

The stock dropped 7.3% to close at $252.40 and is now down 38% for the year, by far the biggest decline among tech’s megacap companies. That’s true even after the shares soared 23% on Wednesday, their second-sharpest rally on record.

President Donald Trump sent stocks up on Wednesday after announcing he would pause steep tariffs for many U.S. trading partners for 90 days to allow for negotiations. He set a minimum tariff rate of 10% while negotiations take place, but increased the tariff on China.

The whole market has whipsawed on President Trump’s changing plans, but Tesla has been particularly volatile, rising or falling by at least 5% on 19 different occasions this year.

The slump on Thursday came after the White House clarified that China’s tariff rate now stood at 145%. Beijing announced a reciprocal 84% tariff rate on U.S. goods, effective April 10. And the EU said it approved reciprocal tariffs on U.S. imports.

As questions swirled about the type of deals the U.S. might strike, analysts at UBS, Goldman Sachs and Mizuho cut their price targets on Tesla, with all three citing margin impacts of Trump’s auto tariffs.

“We expect Tesla shares to be volatile but downward sloping considering the rich valuation (especially compared to the other Mag7 stocks) in a skittish market,” UBS wrote. The firm, which has a sell rating and price target of $190, said it also sees “demand concerns.”

Tesla has experienced brand deterioration, declining deliveries and has been hit with protests along with some criminal acts targeting its facilities and vehicles. CEO Elon Musk, one of President Trump’s top advisers, has drawn heat to Tesla for his work in the White House, where he has slashed government spending and the federal workforce. In Europe, he has faced opposition after endorsing Germany’s far-right AfD party.

Tesla sales declined across Europe in the first quarter, according to data from European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) and others.

The uncertainty and threat of new tariffs has been troubling for Tesla’s margin outlook. The company sources many parts and materials from suppliers in China, Mexico and elsewhere.

Sales growth for Tesla previously hinged on the company’s ability to manufacture and sell a high volume of its cars and battery energy storage systems throughout Europe and Asia. EV competition has ramped up on both continents recently, and now the company has to contend with highest costs imposed by levies.

Musk has taken his anger out on Trump’s top trade adviser Peter Navarro, calling him a “moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks” in social media posts earlier this week. However, Musk has shown his approval of the administration’s hard line against China, sharing a clip on X of U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent discussing the matter.

“China’s business model is predicated on this incredible imbalanced economy, and exporting low-cost goods – and subsidized goods – to the rest of the world,” Bessent said in the clip.

Thursday’s selloff provided some relief to Tesla short sellers, who got hammered in the prior day’s rally. According to S3 Partners, Tesla short interest stood around 80.5 million shares, with a 2.8% float as of Thursday. It’s one of the top four equity shorts in terms of notional value, at $17.9 billion. Short sellers bet on the decline in a stock and lose money when it goes up.

WATCH: Tesla faces opportunities and challenges