Meta Escapes Antitrust Wrath: Judge Rules No Monopoly After Instagram, WhatsApp Acquisitions

In a pivotal ruling, a U.S. district judge declared that Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, did not breach antitrust laws with its prior acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. This decision serves as a significant defeat for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which had accused Meta of monopolizing social media through these purchases made over a decade ago. Judge James Boasberg concluded that the FTC had failed to demonstrate that Meta held any monopoly status in the current social media landscape.

The judge pointed out the dynamic nature of social media, with constant changes as apps rise and fall in popularity. This landscape is increasingly influenced by platforms like TikTok and YouTube, which Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former COO Sheryl Sandberg testified had disrupted Meta’s market position. Judge Boasberg referenced that the FTC had previously approved both acquisitions back in 2012 and 2014, despite claiming Meta overpaid for Instagram and WhatsApp. He noted that Meta’s market share appears to be declining, reinforcing the argument that the company does not currently enjoy a monopoly.

Following the ruling, the FTC expressed disappointment and is evaluating its next steps, although its chances may be hindered by perceived biases regarding Judge Boasberg. While this verdict spares Meta from potential forced divestitures of Instagram and WhatsApp, it comes at a time when the Department of Justice is facing mixed results in tech antitrust cases, notably against Google.

Legal experts note that the FTC case against Meta was always complicated given the rapid changes in the social media industry. However, the ruling doesn’t indicate a failure of governmental efforts against antitrust behavior but suggests a shifting momentum in such cases. Meta’s legal challenges remain ongoing, as Zuckerberg is set to appear in another trial related to the effects of social media on young users. This ruling not only underscores the complexities of antitrust law in a fast-evolving market but also highlights the ongoing scrutiny that tech giants face over their market practices.