According to Inc, Meta has prevailed in its historic FTC antitrust case that could have forced the company to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled Tuesday that Meta does not hold a monopoly in social networking, rejecting the FTC’s argument that the company maintained dominance through anticompetitive acquisitions. The decision comes after the trial wrapped up in late May and represents a sharp contrast to recent rulings against Google. The FTC had argued Meta pursued CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s 2008 philosophy that “it is better to buy than compete,” pointing to the $1 billion Instagram acquisition in 2012 and $22 billion WhatsApp purchase in 2014. However, the judge determined the agency failed to prove Meta holds monopoly power today rather than in the past.
Why this matters
This was basically an existential threat for Meta. The FTC wasn’t just asking for fines – they wanted to break up the company by forcing Instagram and WhatsApp to become separate entities again. That would have fundamentally changed Meta’s business model and potentially wiped out billions in value.
Here’s the thing about antitrust law: it’s not enough to prove someone was a monopoly in the past. The FTC had to show Meta currently holds monopoly power. And that’s where their case fell apart. The social media landscape has transformed dramatically since those acquisitions happened over a decade ago.
The TikTok factor
Judge Boasberg made a crucial observation that really undermines the FTC’s case. When the agency first filed this lawsuit in 2020, TikTok wasn’t even mentioned in the initial complaints. Now? The judge calls it “Meta’s fiercest rival.” That’s a massive shift in just a few years.
Think about it. TikTok has completely rewritten the social media playbook. Meta has been playing catch-up with Reels, pouring billions into competing features. Does that sound like a company comfortably sitting on a monopoly? Or one scrambling to keep up with a genuine competitive threat?
Zuckerberg’s emails
The FTC leaned heavily on Zuckerberg’s old emails from around the time of the Instagram acquisition. They tried to paint this picture of Facebook systematically tracking and neutralizing threats. But here’s the problem with that approach – those emails are over a decade old, and the FTC approved those deals at the time.
Zuckerberg testified in April that those early emails didn’t capture the full scope of why they wanted Instagram. And honestly, who hasn’t written something in an email that doesn’t fully represent their complete thinking? The court basically said you can’t convict someone based on decade-old internal chatter when the competitive reality has completely changed.
What’s next for Meta
While this is a huge win, Meta isn’t out of the regulatory woods yet. As other reports note, major social networks face landmark trials next year regarding children’s mental health. That’s a completely different battlefield with potentially even bigger public relations consequences.
Still, this ruling gives Meta breathing room to continue its massive AI investments without the cloud of a potential breakup hanging over them. The company can argue it faces “fierce competition” – and honestly, with TikTok eating their lunch and new platforms emerging constantly, they’re not wrong. The social media river, as the judge quoted Heraclitus, keeps flowing and changing. Nobody steps in the same waters twice.
