Judge rules Meta isn't a monopoly, Instagram and WhatsApp stay together

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled on Nov. 18, 2025, that Meta does not hold a monopoly in the social networking market, defeating the Federal Trade Commission's high-profile antitrust case. The FTC sued Meta in 2020, accusing it of operating a buy or bury scheme against nascent competitors by acquiring Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion. Losing either platform could have done existential damage to Meta's empire, as Instagram generates an estimated half of Meta's revenue.

Judge Boasberg wrote in his memorandum opinion, The landscape that existed only five years ago when the Federal Trade Commission brought this antitrust suit has changed markedly. He cited the rise of TikTok in particular as evidence of competition in the social networking market. Boasberg chided the FTC for failing to account for the YouTube video platform as meaningful competition, writing, Even if YouTube is out, including TikTok alone defeats the FTC's case.

The FTC initially filed the case five years ago, centered on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Boasberg dismissed the case in 2021, saying the agency didn't have enough evidence to prove Facebook holds market power. In Aug. 2021, the FTC filed an amended complaint with more details about the company's user numbers and metrics relative to competitors like Snapchat, the now-defunct Google+ social network, and Myspace. Boasberg ruled in 2022 that the case could proceed after the FTC presented more details.

The seven-week trial in 2025 saw testimony from prominent figures, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who argued that the company has plenty of competition from platforms including YouTube and TikTok. Boasberg agreed with the company's argument, saying that TikTok and YouTube prevent Meta from monopolizing the social network market. He also noted that Meta's apps and the social media landscape have changed since the FTC filed its case, most recently because of AI-generated content.

FTC Director of Public Affairs Joe Simonson said in a statement, We are deeply disappointed in this decision. The deck was always stacked against us with Judge Boasberg, who is currently facing articles of impeachment. We are reviewing all our options. The statement acknowledged the awkward position of losing a major antitrust case before a judge facing impeachment proceedings, raising questions about the legitimacy of the ruling.

Jennifer Newstead, Meta's chief legal officer, wrote at the start of the trial, It's absurd that the FTC is trying to break up a great American company at the same time the administration is trying to save Chinese-owned TikTok. Meta's defense strategy emphasized competition from TikTok throughout the trial. The judge's decision follows two separate rulings that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising, creating a split in tech antitrust enforcement.

The ruling dampens the regulatory crackdown initiated by the U.S. government to rein in tech giants, some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world. In contrast to the victories over Google, the Meta decision represents a setback for antitrust enforcement. The FTC has also sued Amazon for anticompetitive practices. The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing other tech antitrust cases, but the Meta victory shows the difficulty of proving monopoly power in rapidly changing digital markets.