According to Thurrott.com, U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg ruled today that Meta did not illegally create or maintain a monopoly through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The five-year-old case famously revealed internal Facebook communications where co-founder Mark Zuckerberg stated “it is better to buy than compete.” However, the judge determined that the FTC failed to prove Meta currently holds monopoly power, noting that the social media landscape has “changed markedly” since the lawsuit began. The ruling specifically cited the rise of new competitors like TikTok and YouTube as creating fierce competition that undermines monopoly claims. Meta immediately welcomed the decision, stating their products “exemplify American innovation and economic growth.”
Timing is everything
Here’s the thing about antitrust cases – they move at the speed of law while technology moves at the speed of, well, technology. This case took five years to wind through the system. Five years! In tech time, that’s basically multiple generations. When this lawsuit started, TikTok was still Musical.ly and hadn’t really exploded. Now? It’s completely reshaped the social media landscape.
Judge Boasberg basically said the FTC’s case was stuck in 2017 thinking. The whole argument about separating “social networking” from “social media” just doesn’t hold water anymore. People don’t think “I’m going to use a social networking app” versus “I’m going to use a social media app” – they just open whatever app gives them what they want in that moment. And that could be Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, or even Snapchat.
The “buy don’t build” revelation
Remember when those internal emails came out where Zuckerberg talked about acquiring companies rather than competing with them? That sounded really bad at the time. But the judge basically treated it like any other business decision. It’s cheaper to buy than build from scratch? Well, yeah – that’s Business 101.
Think about it from a pure business perspective. When you’re running a massive company, sometimes acquiring a promising startup makes more financial sense than trying to replicate their technology and user base internally. Does that mean it’s anticompetitive? The court says not necessarily. It’s just smart business – unless you can prove it actually creates or maintains a monopoly. And that’s where the FTC’s case fell apart.
What this means for big tech
This ruling is huge for other tech giants facing similar scrutiny. If the FTC can’t make a monopoly case stick against Meta after those acquisitions, what does that mean for other potential cases? It sets a pretty high bar for proving current monopoly power in fast-moving tech markets.
And let’s be real – the competitive landscape in social media is absolutely brutal right now. Meta is spending billions trying to compete with TikTok’s algorithm. They’re scrambling to keep younger users engaged. YouTube is eating everyone’s lunch with both short-form and long-form content. This doesn’t exactly sound like a cozy monopoly situation.
The bigger question now is whether regulators will learn from this and move faster in future cases. Because by the time they build their case, gather evidence, and get through court, the market has usually moved on. It’s like trying to hit a moving target while running in quicksand.
