Furthermore, the Court may consider the documents without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. Gross v. Wright, 185 F.Supp.3d 39, 48 (D.D.C. 2016). It is appropriate for the Court to consider this document for the same reason as explained supra n.8.
The Court also observes that aside from Plaintiff plainly lacking standing to sue, “[i]n the absence of complete diversity, federal jurisdiction generally exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Gross v. Wright, 185 F.Supp.3d 39, 48 n.5 (D.D.C. 2016) (cleaned up).
Thus, "a civil antitrust plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant's action targeted, or had an actual adverse effect on, competition as a whole in the relevant market." Gross v. Wright, 185 F. Supp. 3d 39, 49 (D.D.C. 2016) (Cooper, J.) (cleaned up). Typical anticompetitive effects "include, but are not limited to, reduction of output, increase in price, or deterioration in quality."
The market-definition inquiry in this case is somewhat unusual because, unlike familiar consumer goods like tobacco or office supplies, there is no obvious or universally agreed-upon definition of just what a personal social networking service is. As a result, to discharge its "burden to define the relevant market," Gross v. Wright, 185 F. Supp. 3d 39, 50 (D.D.C. 2016) (citation omitted), the FTC must do two things here. First, it must provide a definition of PSN services (which, obviously, would include at least Facebook Blue).