1 hour ago
738
A U.S. District Judge has ruled in favor of Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook) in a high-profile antitrust lawsuit brought before the court by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The case has been active since December 2020, and it accuses Meta of illegally maintaining a monopoly in the “personal social networking” market via its acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.
Why did the FTC lose its Meta case?
The Judge who had the final say in the FTC’s case against Meta was James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. According to a memorandum opinion released on Tuesday, he cited the FTC’s failure to prove its argument as the reason for ruling in Meta’s favor.
As far as Boasberg is concerned, Meta is correct in saying that the technology industry has evolved since the early days of Facebook, and that the company now faces a wide variety of competitors like TikTok.
“While each of Meta’s empirical showings can be quibbled with, they all tell a consistent story: people treat TikTok and YouTube as substitutes for Facebook and Instagram, and the amount of competitive overlap is economically important,” Boasberg wrote. “Against that unmistakable pattern, the FTC offers no empirical evidence of substitution whatsoever.”
Broadsberg, in the filing, does not concern himself with Meta’s past, instead focusing on the now. He said: “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so. A judgment so stating shall issue this day.”
It is not the first time Boasberg has ruled in Meta’s favor regarding this case. In 2021, Boasberg dismissed the case, claiming the agency didn’t have enough evidence to prove “Facebook holds market power.” This pushed the FTC to file an amended complaint in August of that year, and it contained more details about the company’s user numbers and metrics compared to rivals like Snapchat, the now-defunct Google+ social network and Myspace.
It was not until after another review of the amendments that Boasberg ruled in 2022 that the case could proceed since the FTC had presented more details than before. The new trial began in April 2025 and saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former operating chief Sheryl Sandberg, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom and other current and former Meta executives testify.
“The Court’s decision today recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition,” the company said in a statement. “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America.”
Google barely escaped selling crucial assets in its business
The resolution of Meta’s case comes several weeks after Google secured a breakthrough in a case that could have forced it to give up the Chrome browser. The case started last year when Google was found to hold an illegal monopoly in its core market of internet search.
There were a number of consequences to that ruling, all proposed by the Department of Justice. However, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the most severe ones, including the forced sale of Google’s Chrome browser, which provides the data that its advertising business uses to deliver targeted ads.
“Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment,” the decision read. “Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.”
In a blog post, Google expressed concerns about the Court’s requirements, claiming it will impact users and their privacy, and stated it is reviewing the decision closely.
“The Court did recognize that divesting Chrome and Android would have gone beyond the case’s focus on search distribution, and would have harmed consumers and our partners,” it wrote.
Google was also ordered to loosen its hold on search data. According to Mehta’s ruling, Google will have to make available certain search index data and user interaction data, though “not ads data.” As such, Google is exempt from having to share or provide access to granular data with advertisers.
The court has narrowed the datasets Google will be required to share and has said they must occur on “ordinary commercial terms that are consistent with Google’s current syndication services.”
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.
English (US)