Meta Survives Another Day: FTC Antitrust Case Dismissed

Meta survives another day.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found in favor of Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook), ruling that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) failed to prove that Meta holds a monopoly in the relevant product market.

---

📋 The Case

The FTC alleged that Meta monopolized the "personal social networking" (PSN) market by acquiring upstart rivals Instagram and WhatsApp. The argument: Facebook saw these companies as existential threats and bought them to eliminate competition rather than compete on merit.

It's the classic "buy or bury" antitrust theory — and on paper, it looked like the FTC had a strong case. The internal communications from Facebook executives during the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions were... not subtle.

---

⚖️ The Ruling

The Court, however, found that the social media landscape has evolved significantly since the suit was filed.

The key issue came down to market definition — arguably the most important (and most contested) element in any antitrust case.

The FTC defined the market narrowly: "personal social networking services." In that market, Meta looked dominant.

But the Court determined that Meta competes in the broader social media market, which includes fierce rivals like:

• TikTok — which has fundamentally reshaped how people consume and create content
• YouTube — still the dominant video platform with massive engagement
• Other platforms competing for the same user attention and advertiser dollars

When you zoom out to that broader market, Meta's position looks a lot less like a monopoly and more like one major player among several.

---

🤔 What This Means

For Meta

This is a major win. The company can continue operating Instagram and WhatsApp as integrated parts of its business without the threat of forced divestitures — at least from this case.

For Antitrust Enforcement

This ruling highlights how difficult it is to bring antitrust cases in tech markets that evolve rapidly. By the time a case gets to trial, the competitive landscape may look completely different than when the alleged anticompetitive conduct occurred.

For the Industry

The ruling reinforces that market definition is everything in antitrust. If regulators define markets too narrowly, they may overstate dominance. If courts define markets too broadly, genuinely anticompetitive behavior may go unchecked.

---

💭 The Bigger Question

The interesting question isn't whether Meta is a monopoly today — it's whether the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp prevented competition that would have otherwise emerged.

That counterfactual is incredibly hard to prove in court. What would Instagram have become without Facebook's resources? Would WhatsApp have remained independent? Would other competitors have filled the void?

We'll never know. And that uncertainty worked in Meta's favor.

---

📎 What's Next

The FTC could appeal, but the ruling deals a significant blow to their case. The market definition issue will be hard to overcome on appeal.

For now, Meta lives to fight another day.