According to Gizmodo, Judge James Boasberg ruled on Tuesday that Meta does not currently hold an illegal monopoly in social media, dismissing the Federal Trade Commission’s case that had been building for five years. The decision comes 13 years after Facebook bought Instagram and 11 years after acquiring WhatsApp, with the judge noting that TikTok’s emergence fundamentally changed the competitive landscape. Internal messages from Mark Zuckerberg showed he explicitly stated “It is better to buy than compete” and that acquisitions were about “buying time” to maintain dominance. The FTC failed to prove Meta holds monopoly power now, despite evidence of past dominance, because consumers are shifting massive amounts of time to competitors like TikTok and YouTube. This represents a major victory for Meta, which won’t face forced divestiture of Instagram or WhatsApp despite the FTC’s arguments about anticompetitive behavior dating back to the early acquisitions.
The monopoly math doesn’t add up anymore
Here’s the thing about antitrust law – it’s not about what you did in the past, but what you’re doing right now. The judge basically said yeah, Meta probably had monopoly power when they scooped up Instagram and WhatsApp, but that was over a decade ago. The landscape has completely shifted since then. TikTok came along and changed everything, forcing Meta to pour “gobs of cash” into competing with Reels. So even though Zuckerberg’s internal messages show pretty clear anticompetitive intent back in the day, the court says that doesn’t matter if the market has since corrected itself.
This is becoming the Big Tech playbook
And Meta isn’t the first company to benefit from this timing loophole. Google recently dodged major penalties in its own antitrust case because judges decided that generative AI might disrupt their search dominance. So we’re seeing a pattern here – if you can just delay regulators long enough, either new competitors will emerge or new technologies will develop that make your monopoly status less obvious. It’s like getting away with speeding because by the time the cop pulls you over, you’ve already slowed down.
The fundamental regulatory challenge
But this creates a huge problem for antitrust enforcement. These cases take years to build and litigate – we’re talking about a five-year case here for Meta. By the time everything gets to court, the market has inevitably evolved. Social media moves at lightning speed compared to legal proceedings. So what’s the solution? Should regulators be faster? Should we judge companies based on their behavior at the time of the alleged violations rather than the current market situation? These are tough questions without easy answers.
What this means going forward
Look, this ruling basically gives Big Tech a green light for aggressive acquisition strategies. The message is clear: buy your competitors, integrate their features, and by the time regulators catch up, the market will have changed enough that you’re no longer considered a monopoly. It’s a risky strategy, but it just paid off handsomely for Meta. The company gets to keep both Instagram and WhatsApp while avoiding any meaningful consequences for behavior that, let’s be honest, was pretty clearly aimed at dominating the social media space. Don’t be surprised if we see more of these “buy now, argue later” approaches from other tech giants.
