Dear FTC Trial Team:

I am writing to bring to your attention a federal antitrust case I filed against Meta Platforms that contains evidence potentially relevant to your ongoing trial. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently rejected a Magistrate's recommendation to dismiss my complaint, finding it adequately states claims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

My case documents a pattern of anticompetitive conduct that closely parallels issues in your litigation:

Competitive Surveillance: My evidence shows Meta employees systematically tested my app using test accounts (with documented tfbnw.net email addresses) to identify competitive functionality.
API Restrictions Following Identification: After observing my app's features, Meta systematically disabled API access they had previously approved, often using deceptive technical means. Rather than transparently removing functionality, they implemented false error messages claiming content was 'reported as abusive' for brand new content that could not possibly have been seen by any users. This technical deception effectively rendered competitive features non-functional while masking the anticompetitive intent behind a facade of content moderation.
Pretextual Justifications: Meta provided demonstrably false "abuse" reports for newly created content and engaged in a documented pattern of support obfuscation to mask anticompetitive intent.
Systematic Stonewalling: When challenged through proper support channels, Meta engaged in what my evidence documents as 'constructive denial' - appearing to investigate issues while systematically closing support tickets without resolution, redirecting to non-functional appeal processes, claiming issues were resolved when they remained blocked, and ultimately deleting support threads containing evidence of their conduct. This pattern effectively prevented any recourse while maintaining the appearance of providing support.

I have also filed and served a similar antitrust case against Roku, Inc. (Case No. 8:24-cv-02383, M.D. Fla.) documenting comparable anticompetitive conduct in the streaming platform market. The existence of parallel patterns across major platforms may indicate broader industry practices that restrict competition through API control and platform surveillance. It is currently pending a decision on motion to dismiss.

The court ordered service of my complaint on Meta, and their response is due May 5 2025. I have extensive documentation, including video evidence of the functionality before and after Meta's interventions, correspondence records, and technical logs.

While I understand your case focuses primarily on Meta's acquisitions, my evidence may provide additional context regarding Meta's broader pattern of identifying and eliminating competitive threats through platform control.

If during your trial preparation or proceedings you have uncovered evidence relevant to Meta's broader pattern of API restrictions and competitive surveillance that might be pertinent to my case, I would be grateful if you could point me toward any public documents or testimony. I understand the constraints of ongoing litigation, but any guidance toward publicly available information would be valuable as I prepare my case.

As I am proceeding pro se, I would also appreciate any referrals to attorneys or legal organizations experienced in antitrust litigation who might be interested in this case. Given the substantial evidence I've gathered and the court's favorable initial ruling, I believe this case has merit and could benefit from specialized legal representation.

If this information would be helpful to your team, I would be happy to provide relevant documentation. I can be reached at 310-593-4485 or joe@joedean.net.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Joseph Dean, Pro Se Plaintiff

Attachments:

Court Order on Complaint (Document 19)

Second Amended Complaint (Document 14)