Meta Secures Legal Win as Judge Finds No Monopoly Power

A federal judge delivered a significant victory to Meta on Tuesday, ruling that the company does not constitute a monopoly in the social networking market and rejecting the US Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to force the divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC had filed its lawsuit in 2020, alleging that Meta violated antitrust laws by purchasing emerging competitors to avoid having to contend with them. Over the seven-week trial, high-profile witnesses, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, maintained that the company faces substantial competition from platforms such as YouTube and TikTok.

Judge James Boasberg supported Meta’s position, concluding that the presence of TikTok and YouTube prevents the company from dominating the market. He also emphasized that the evolution of Meta’s services and the broader social media environment—including the rise of AI-generated content—undermined the FTC’s claims. In his opinion, he stated that Meta does not possess monopoly power in the relevant market. FTC spokesperson Joe Simonson expressed disappointment with the ruling and indicated that the agency is considering its next steps.

A breakup would have significantly disrupted Meta’s business, given Instagram’s importance for advertising revenue and WhatsApp’s value in business messaging and global reach. Despite Meta’s 3.3 billion daily active users across its platforms, Zuckerberg testified that Facebook, the company’s original product, is declining in popularity.

The decision represents a broader triumph for Silicon Valley at a time when US regulators are increasingly pursuing antitrust actions against large technology firms. Google has recently been found to hold monopolies in cases concerning its search and digital advertising operations, while Apple and Amazon are also contesting government-led antitrust suits.

Meta acquired Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014. During the trial, FTC attorneys cited internal communications suggesting Zuckerberg feared competition from the two companies before acquiring them, arguing that Meta’s vast user base showed consumers lacked meaningful alternatives. Meta countered that regulators had approved both acquisitions when they occurred and that forcing a divestiture now would undermine US competitiveness in the tech sector.

Boasberg’s ruling stated that Meta controls only a limited portion of the total time users spend across the social media market—which includes Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, MeWe, TikTok, and YouTube—and that its share is decreasing. He added that Meta would still not qualify as a monopoly even if YouTube were excluded from the analysis. He also noted TikTok’s rapid rise since entering the market seven years ago, positioning it as Meta’s most formidable competitor.