• Judge James Boasberg cited FTC’s failure to demonstrate Meta’s ongoing monopoly power in personal social networking.

• The ruling emphasizes Meta’s current competitors, including TikTok and YouTube, as viable substitutes for Facebook and Instagram.

• This marks the second dismissal, following a 2021 ruling; the case began in December 2020 and involved key executive testimonies in 2025.

Meta wins FTC antitrust case: Judge dismisses monopoly claims over Instagram, WhatsApp buys. Explore competition from TikTok and implications for Big Tech. Stay informed on antitrust developments—read more now!

What Happened in the FTC Antitrust Case Against Meta?

The FTC antitrust case against Meta ended with a dismissal by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ruled that the Federal Trade Commission failed to prove Meta maintains an illegal monopoly in personal social networking. The lawsuit, initiated in December 2020, accused Meta of unlawfully acquiring Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 to stifle competition. Boasberg focused on current market dynamics, noting substantial rivalry from platforms like TikTok and YouTube, which users increasingly view as alternatives.

Why Did the FTC Fail to Prove Its Case Against Meta?

Judge Boasberg, from the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., issued a memorandum opinion highlighting the FTC’s insufficient evidence. He acknowledged Meta’s arguments about industry evolution since Facebook’s early days, pointing to competitors like TikTok as significant threats. “While each of Meta’s empirical showings can be quibbled with, they all tell a consistent story: people treat TikTok and YouTube as substitutes for Facebook and Instagram, and the amount of competitive overlap is economically important,” Boasberg stated. The FTC provided no countering empirical data on user substitution patterns.

Boasberg’s decision centered on the present rather than historical dominance: “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so.” This echoes his 2021 dismissal for lack of evidence on market power, prompting an amended FTC complaint in August 2021 with details on user metrics versus rivals like Snapchat and the defunct Google+. After further review, the case proceeded to trial in April 2025, featuring testimonies from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former COO Sheryl Sandberg, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom, and other executives.

Meta responded positively: “The Court’s decision today recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition. Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America.” This outcome underscores the challenges in antitrust enforcement amid rapid tech advancements, where defining markets remains complex, according to legal experts familiar with the proceedings.

How Does Google’s Recent Antitrust Ruling Compare to Meta’s Victory?

Google’s antitrust case, resolved weeks before Meta’s, also avoided the most drastic remedies despite a finding of illegal monopoly in internet search. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected Department of Justice proposals to force divestiture of the Chrome browser or Android OS, assets integral to Google’s ad business. “Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment,” Mehta wrote. “Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.”

The ruling followed a 2024 decision confirming Google’s search monopoly, with remedies focused on data sharing rather than asset sales. Google must provide certain search index and user interaction data on commercial terms but is exempt from sharing advertising data. Mehta narrowed the scope to protect user privacy and avoid overreach. Google expressed concerns in a statement: “The Court did recognize that divesting Chrome and Android would have gone beyond the case’s focus on search distribution, and would have harmed consumers and our partners.” This decision, like Meta’s, reflects judicial caution in breaking up tech giants, prioritizing evidence-based remedies over structural changes. Industry analysts note these cases signal a tougher but balanced approach to Big Tech regulation under current U.S. antitrust frameworks.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the key details of the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit against Meta?

The FTC sued Meta in December 2020, alleging it illegally acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 to maintain a monopoly in personal social networking. The case sought to unwind these deals but was dismissed twice due to insufficient evidence of current market power, with the latest ruling in 2025 emphasizing competition from TikTok and YouTube.

Why was Meta’s case dismissed by Judge Boasberg?

Judge James Boasberg dismissed the case because the FTC couldn’t prove Meta holds monopoly power today, despite past concerns. He highlighted empirical evidence of user shifts to competitors like TikTok, stating the FTC offered no data on substitution, focusing instead on present-day market realities in his 2025 opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Meta’s Antitrust Win: The dismissal reinforces that proving ongoing monopoly in dynamic tech markets requires strong current evidence, not just historical actions.
• Competition Recognition: Platforms like TikTok and YouTube are seen as meaningful rivals, impacting user behavior and challenging monopoly claims with data on substitution.
• Broader Implications for Big Tech: Similar to Google’s case, courts are avoiding asset divestitures, opting for targeted remedies to foster competition without disrupting innovation.

Conclusion

The FTC antitrust case against Meta and the parallel Google proceedings illustrate the evolving landscape of U.S. tech regulation, where antitrust rulings prioritize empirical proof of current dominance amid fierce competition. These decisions protect innovation while addressing monopoly concerns, signaling a nuanced path forward for regulators. As Big Tech continues to shape digital economies, stakeholders should monitor ongoing appeals and potential legislative shifts to stay ahead of regulatory changes.