What is going on with Meta? Understanding the historic big tech antitrust ruling
Recently, Meta – owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp – achieved an important court victory, where the attempt by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – the U.S. government agency responsible for protecting consumers and ensuring fair competition among businesses – to force Meta to sell or change Instagram and WhatsApp was rejected.
The FTC argued that by acquiring these platforms, Meta had sought to eliminate competition and consolidate a monopoly in the social media sector. According to the government agency – spending billions of dollars to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014, respectively – Meta had weakened potential emerging competitors instead of competing fairly, thereby reducing choice for users and hindering innovation in the sector.
Is the social media market competitive?
Wait a minute. The @FTC lost its case against @Meta because it had gerrymandered an implausible market definition w/o @tiktok_us. Who would have thought? pic.twitter.com/sR0kxqMzJc
— Nicolas Petit (@CompetitionProf) November 20, 2025
In particular, U.S. judge James Boasberg determined that Meta does not hold a monopoly because the social media market is much broader and more competitive than the FTC had initially considered when filing the lawsuit. Specifically, Boasberg noted that platforms like TikTok and YouTube, as well as Apple’s messaging apps, exert real competitive pressure, preventing Meta from truly controlling the entire sector.
Moreover, the judge emphasized that the social media landscape has changed significantly in recent years: Instagram is no longer primarily used for personal updates but competes within a global ecosystem of diverse platforms, attracting users with different content and functionalities. According to Boasberg, excluding platforms like TikTok or YouTube from the market analysis, as the FTC did, ignores much of the actual competition.
Impacts of the ruling
@pbsnews A federal judge ruled that Facebook's parent company, Meta, does not have an illegal monopoly over social networking. It's a huge win for the social media giant and means that Meta won't have to spin off its Instagram and WhatsApp platforms. In his ruling, Judge James Boasberg said times have changed since the government first brought its case five years ago, with competitors like TikTok mixing things up in the market. Tuesday's decision is a sharp contrast to recent rulings that found Google engaged in an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising. #pbsnewshour #newshour #pbsnews #meta #socialnetworking #news original sound - pbsnews
As reported by Business of Fashion, the ruling represents the first clear victory of a major tech company against the FTC’s antitrust action, which continues to pursue other cases against tech giants such as Amazon, Google, and Apple. In particular, the ruling concerns what has been considered the most important case against Meta regarding competition.
The FTC has not yet issued a statement. Meta, however, defended its acquisition strategy, arguing that buying innovative companies rather than developing competing products internally is a legitimate business choice, and that the presence of global competitors like TikTok and YouTube shows that the market remains open and competitive.
A Meta spokesperson also commented on the ruling, noting that the company’s products continue to be very useful to many people and businesses, and that for the United States they represent an opportunity for innovation and economic growth – for this reason, the company will continue to invest in the country, including by collaborating with institutions.
Big tech and relations with the government
@nxthompson A simple, but also highly creative, test that showed the government has wrongly identified its competitors.
original sound - Nicholas Thompson
The FTC lawsuit was filed at the end of Trump’s first term: the case continued without being withdrawn during Joe Biden’s presidency, and then again during Trump’s second term.
For some time, however, leaders of major tech companies have been approaching the U.S. government, on one hand aiming to obtain advantages from deregulation policies in various sectors promoted by Trump, and on the other to limit the negative effects of other measures – such as those related to tariffs.
The case has important implications for the future of regulation of major U.S. tech companies. With this “precedent,” big tech may feel freer to acquire emerging platforms without risking having to sell them in the future for antitrust reasons. At the same time, authorities like the FTC will need to adapt their strategies to better account for the rapid evolution of digital markets.
