A U.S. federal judge ruled that Meta does not hold a monopoly in the social media market, rejecting the FTC's antitrust lawsuit seeking divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC, joined by multiple states, filed the suit in December 2020, alleging Meta (formerly Facebook) violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by acquiring Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014.
These moves were part of a supposed "buy-or-bury" strategy to eliminate rivals in "personal social networking services" (PSNS), stifling innovation, increasing ads, and weakening privacy. The agency claimed Meta's dominance left consumers with few alternatives, excluding platforms like TikTok and YouTube from its narrow market definition.
Trial and ruling
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg oversaw a seven-week trial ending in May 2025, featuring testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who highlighted competition from TikTok and YouTube. In an 89-page opinion on November 18, 2025, Boasberg ruled the FTC failed to prove current monopoly power, noting the social media landscape's rapid evolution with surging apps, new features, and AI content.He emphasized Meta's market share—below 50% and declining in a broader market including Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube—showed no insulation from rivals.
Key arguments and evidence
The FTC presented internal emails suggesting Zuckerberg feared Instagram and WhatsApp as threats, arguing acquisitions suppressed competition and harmed users via heavier ads and less privacy. Boasberg dismissed this, finding direct evidence like supra-competitive profits or price hikes insufficient for monopoly proof, and rejected the PSNS market as outdated given overlapping uses across apps.Meta countered that regulators approved the deals initially and that forcing divestiture would hurt U.S. innovation.I
Implications
Meta hailed the decision as affirming fierce competition and its contributions to growth, avoiding operational upheaval for its 3.54 billion daily users. The FTC expressed disappointment and is reviewing options, marking a setback amid wins against Google but ongoing cases versus Apple and Amazon. Experts view it as reinforcing consumer-focused antitrust in dynamic tech markets.
