The expansion of the universe, according to General Relativity, does NOT occur at a fixed speed. So it is meaningless to say it is faster than light. The units of speed are distance/time. The Hubble Constant (which should be called the Hubble parameter since it changes with time) is around 70 km/sec/Mpc. Mpc is a megaparsec, a million parsecs, about 3.26 million light years. The units of expansion are (distance/time)/distance. This is 1/time, that’s NOT a speed.
What the expansion rate does is relate apparent velocity to distance. This is the observation that Hubble made. Things in our universe seem to be moving away from us at a speed that depends on their distance. Specifically: V=D*H. The apparent velocity equals the distance times the Hubble parameter.
So the relative speed depends on distance. Giving a single speed is just wrong. For points close enough the relative speed was NEVER faster than light. For any nonzero expansion rate, if the universe is big enough, and you consider points far enough apart, there are always some points separating at faster than light. So superluminal expansion seems to be always happening, but if you think about it more carefully it never is. What is happening superluminally is recession.
This is true now and it was true during inflation. Now the distance needed to produce an apparent superluminal recession speed is very large, but not infinite. During inflation the distance required to get a subliminal recession speed was very small but not zero.
This very common error has been addressed by others. Here's what Sean Carroll has to say about it.
