A 'smoking gun' email has emerged that illustrates the government's core case in its landmark antitrust suits against Facebook, but Wall Street analysts doubt that the case will succeed in forcing the company to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp.
In lawsuits filed on Wednesday by 46 states and federal regulators, the government accuses Facebook of illegally acquiring its competitors in a 'predatory' manner in order to dominate the market. 
Because U.S.

antitrust law hinges on demonstrating harm to the consumer, typically in the form of higher prices, the government faces an uphill battle in showing how users of Facebook's free product have suffered from a lack of competition.
In a novel approach, the lawsuits argue that Facebook, which in its early days made elaborate vows to protect the privacy of user data, grew lax about privacy specifically in response to the lack of competition, gobbling up more and more data that it monetized by selling targeted ads.
A series of emails from 2011 quoted in the states' complaint illustrate this argument.

Google had just launched its social media product Google+, prompting Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg to warn, 'For the first time, we have real competition and consumers have real choice… we will have to be better to win.'
A 'smoking gun' email has emerged that illustrates the government's core case in its landmark antitrust suits against Facebook.

Above, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is pictured
COO Sheryl Sandberg (above) warned in 2011: 'For the first time, we have real competition and consumers have real choice… we will have to be better to win'

Key emails quoted in the antitrust suit show how Facebook executives planned to hold off on making unpopular changes until the competitive threat from Google+ began to 'die down'
At the time, Facebook was considering a product change that would prevent users from untagging themselves in photos posted by others - a change the company knew would be unpopular, but which would give it a richer set of user data.
One unnamed Facebook executive responded to the proposal in an email, writing, 'IF ever there was a time to AVOID controversy, it would be when the world is comparing our offerings to G+,' and recommended delaying any controversial changes 'until the direct competitive comparisons begin to die down.' 
Ultimately, Facebook dialed back a number of its planned changes, and in particular continued to allow users to 'untag' themselves in photos, according to the complaint.
The government plans to argue this shows how competition spurred Facebook to protect user privacy - and conversely, how a lack of competition encouraged the company to grow lax about privacy concerns when users have few alternatives.
Facebook's General Counsel Jennifer Newstead argues the opposite, saying that the company achieved dominance in social media precisely because it perfected its product and attended to the concerns of users.
'People and small businesses don't choose to use Facebook's free services and advertising because they have to, they use them because our apps and services deliver the most value,' she told DailyMail.com in a statement.
Facebook's value has grown from around $70billion to more than $700billion in the period in which officials claim the company has been illegally running a monopoly 
Meanwhile, prominent analysts have cast doubt on whether the government will succeed in its bid to force Facebook to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp.
'We're talking about acquisitions that are six or eight years old and it will be difficult for a court to order divestitures of many years ago,' Seth Bloom of Bloom Strategic Counsel told Reuters.
Bloom said the complaints against Facebook are 'significantly weaker' than the DOJ's recent antitrust lawsuit against Google.
Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter said in a note that he is 'skeptical that the FTC will prevail' in forcing a breakup as it would be hard to prove that Facebook 'precluded competition.' 
He noted, however, that there is 'certainly merit to the FTC's allegations that Facebook has strengthened its competitive position' through the Instagram and api whatsapp acquisitions.
'Consumers do not appear to be harmed' by Facebook's acquisitions, said KeyBanc and the firm fails to see why a multiyear breakup process should take place.

The firm says the suits 'will likely be resolved with another fine and additional scrutiny on future M&A.' 
Experts agree that the complaints against Facebook presage a protracted legal battle that could drag on for years before reaching a definitive conclusion. 
The complaints on Wednesday accuse Facebook of buying up rivals, focusing specifically on its previous acquisitions of photo-sharing app Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and messaging app WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014.  
'For nearly a decade, Facebook has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals, snuff out competition, all at the expense of everyday users,' said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the suit filed by 46 states. 
'Facebook targets competitors with a 'buy or bury' approach: if they refuse to be bought out, Facebook tries to squeeze every bit of oxygen out of the room for these companies,' her office said.  
The coalition of 46 states, Washington DC and Guam has called on judges to rule that Facebook's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram were illegal. 
The Federal Trade Commission filed its own lawsuit, accusing Facebook of 'squelching' the threat from WhatsApp and Instagram - an attitude reflected in a 2008 email by Zuckerberg which said 'it is better to buy than compete'. 
The action by both Democratic and Republican officials highlights the growing political consensus to hold Big Tech accountable, and comes weeks after the Department of Justice launched a suit against Google which accused the $1trillion firm of using its market power to fend off rivals. 
Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter chief Jack Dorsey were both hauled in for a highly-politicized Senate hearing last month, and Donald Trump has feuded with both firms over alleged bias and the fact-checking of his posts.    
The federal lawsuit comes just weeks before Trump leaves office to be replaced by Joe Biden, who was less combative about Big Tech during the campaign.  
In a statement to DailyMail.com, Facebook's general counsel Jennifer Newstead blasted the litigation, calling it 'revisionist history.'
'Antitrust laws exist to protect consumers and promote innovation, not to punish successful businesses,' she said. 'Instagram and WhatsApp became the incredible products they are today because Facebook invested billions of dollars, and years of innovation and expertise, to develop new features and better experiences for the millions who enjoy those products.'   
New lawsuits from 46 states and the FTC accuse Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg of anti-competitive conduct and seek to break up the company
The 123-page lawsuit filed by 46 US states describes Facebook's alleged efforts to 'buy or bury the competition' to maintain its social media monopoly. 
Here are some of the allegations in the lawsuit, which Facebook has vowed to contest: 
Early years: Facebook 'hones its tactics to avoid competition' Facebook enjoyed meteoric early growth by out-competing other websites such as Myspace.

But Zuckerberg and his colleagues had already 'honed some tactics' to 'extinguish or impede' their rivals, the lawsuit claims. 
In 2009, Facebook made an 'aggressive overture' to FriendFeed, an aggregator which pulled together content from various social media sites.
Fearing that Twitter was about to acquire the company, Facebook bought it out. 
One Facebook employee who had described FriendFeed as 'the company I fear most' expressed the sentiment in an email that 'we can just buy them'.   
In 2010, Facebook bought a Malaysian company called Octazen which provided contact details for potential users. 
Facebook was already licensing the company's services, but when it turned out Twitter was doing the same, attention turned to how Facebook could 'deprive rivals and potential rivals of this important resource', the lawsuit claims. 
A Facebook executive said that 'an acquisition could be interesting if for a few million we could slow some competitors down for a quarter or so'.

Once Facebook bought the firm, it 'terminated all third-party access to Octazen'. 
'The wrath of Mark': Zuckerberg buys out 'really scary' Instagram  The lawsuit says that Facebook 'increasingly took anticompetitive steps to maintain its monopoly' from about 2012, after it had seen off the short-lived threat from Google Plus. 
By this time, Facebook bosses were becoming 'frightened' at how other firms were moving ahead in the mobile world, it is claimed. Zuckerberg said it was 'really scary' that Facebook was 'very behind' Instagram, telling colleagues they 'might want to consider paying a lot of money' for it.
Asked by his chief financial officer about the motivations for the buyout, Zuckerberg said it was a mixture of wanting to 'neutralize a potential competitor' and 'integrate their products with ours in order to improve our service'.  
Instagram's CEO Kevin Systrom apparently feared that Zuckerberg would 'go into destroy mode' if he refused the deal, adding: 'I don't think we'll ever escape the wrath of Mark...

it just depends how long we avoid it'.  
In April 2012, Facebook bought out Instagram for $1billion, allowing it to discontinue its own Facebook Camera app. 
'Rather than responding to the threat with innovative product development, Facebook simply eliminated Instagram through acquisition,' the lawsuit charges. 
WhatsApp is bought out for a massive $19billion fee that 'shocked and surprised' Facebook staff Facebook faced a 'unique threat' to its monopoly from the rise of online messaging services which allowed people to avoid SMS charges and exchange better-quality pictures, the lawsuit says. 
By 2013, WhatsApp had surpassed Facebook Messenger with 12.2billion messages sent on the platform every day. 
One Facebook executive allegedly said they were 'super-paranoid' about the threat from WhatsApp, while Zuckerberg believed it 'had the potential to enter Facebook's core market and erode its monopoly power'. 
When Facebook bought out WhatsApp for $19billion in 2014, there was said to be 'shock and surprise' among Facebook's own staff at how much they had paid.  
The 'only rationale' for this, the lawsuit claims, was the 'elimination of a potential competitor poised to mount a major challenge to Facebook's monopoly'. 
Once the buyout was complete, Facebook changed WhatsApp's terms of service and privacy policy by combining user data with its other products. 
This led to a reduction of consumer choice by 'eliminating a viable, competitive, privacy-focused option,' it is alleged. 
Facebook shares fell steadily on Wednesday as news of the pending lawsuit began to spread, and they opened down again on Thursday morning 
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, led the coalition of 46 states, plus DC and Guam, in the lawsuit seeking to split up Facebook