Key Points

1. On November 18, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed that Meta did not have a monopoly

   
   

2. This decision confirms that Meta will not have to break off Instagram and WhatsApp

   
   

3. This antitrust decision is markedly different than the Google antitrust decisions involving Search and online ads

   
   

On November 18, 2025, James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, confirmed that Meta did not have a monopoly. Accordingly, Meta will not have to break off Instagram and WhatsApp.

As I mentioned here, Meta had its antitrust trial about seven months ago, where the main question was whether Meta had a monopoly in social media by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp about ten years ago (2012 and 2014 respectively). Essentially, Mark Zucherbergh was the first to give testimony and apparently, while he was on the stand, he was asked to look at his own previous emails that he wrote to associates before and after the acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp to clarify his motives. More specifically, the questions were, “Was the purchase to halt Instagram’s growth and get rid of a threat? Or was it to improve Meta’s product by having WhatsApp run as an independent brand?”

In short, the ultimate decision was that Meta won: it did not have a monopoly and did not have to break up Instagram and WhatsApp.

What Did the Judge Decide?

Initial Comments

The judge made a point of beginning with the comment, “The Court emphasizes that Facebook and Instagram have significantly transformed over the last several years”. In fact, it noted that Facebook bought Instagram back in 2012, and WhatsApp in 2014. In addition, the court described two other relevant social media apps, TikTok and YouTube, which allowed users to watch and upload videos. The court explained the history of evolution of Meta’s apps. For example, as Meta moved to showing TikTok-style videos, TikTok moved to adding Meta-style features to share them with friends. Technological changes have made video apps more social. More specifically, smartphone usage exploded; cellphone data got better; the steady progress of cellular data was followed by a massive leap in AI; and as social networks matured, the alternatives to AI-recommended content have become less appealing.

The court detailed the lengthy history of proceedings beginning with the initial Complaint that was filed in 2021. Again, the court stated straight away in Facebook’s motion to dismiss that it had doubts that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could state a claim for injunctive relief.

The court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss but allowed the FTC to amend its Complaint. The FTC indeed created an Amended Complaint and alleged that Facebook held a monopoly in personal social networking and that Facebook maintained the monopoly by buying both Instagram and WhatsApp to eliminate them as competitive threats. The court found that the FTC had plausibly alleged that Facebook held monopoly power and that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp constituted monopolization. That said, the court did say that the FTC may have challenges proving its allegations in court.

Subsequently, the parties each moved for summary judgment. The court denied both motions and indicated that the FTC had met its forgiving summary judgment standard, but the FTC faced hard questions about whether its claims could hold up in the crucible of trial.

At trial, the court heard testimony for over six weeks and considered thousands of documents.

Decision at Trial

The court found the following:

• Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibited monopolization. The main elements included holding monopoly power (power over some market) and maintaining it through means other than competition on the merits. Plaintiffs typically proved monopoly power indirectly by showing that a firm had a dominant share of a market that was protected by barriers to entry

  
  

• A big question in this case was, When did Meta have monopoly power? The FTC had to show that Meta was violating the law now or imminently and could only seek to enjoin the conduct that currently or imminently violated the law (the FTC incorrectly argued that Meta broke the law in the past, and this violation is still harming competition)

  
  

• The court defined the product market as the smallest set of products such that if a hypothetical monopolist controlled them all, then it would maximize its profits by raising prices significantly above competitive levels. The court confirmed that the FTC had the burden of proving the market’s bounds

  
  

• The court found that consumers treated TikTok and YouTube as substitutes for Facebook and Instagram. For instance, this could be seen when there was a shutdown of TikTok in the United States: users switched to other apps like Facebook, and later Instagram, and then YouTube. The court commented, “The amount of time that TikTok seems to be taking from Meta’s apps is stunning”. In fact, the court noted that when consumers could not use Facebook and Instagram, they turned first to TikTok and YouTube, and when they could not use TikTok or YouTube, they turned to Facebook and Instagram—Meta itself had no doubt that TikTok and YouTube competed with it. Thus, even when considering only qualitative evidence, the court found that Meta’s apps were reasonably interchangeable with TikTok and YouTube

  
  

• In assessing Meta’s monopoly power, the court considered a market that comprised Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, MeWe, TikTok, and YouTube. Also, the court found that the best single measure of market share here was total time spent—the companies themselves often measured their market share using this measure. The court noted that Meta’s market share was falling, and what counted most regarding market share was the ability to maintain market share. A given market share was less likely to add up to a monopoly if it was eroding—if monopoly power was the power to control prices or exclude competition, then that power seemed to have slipped from Meta’s grip. The court concluded that YouTube and TikTok belonged in the product market, and they prevented Meta from holding a monopoly. Even if YouTube were not included in the product market, including TikTok alone defeated the FTC’s case

Social media moved so quickly that it never looked the same way twice since the case began in 2021. The competitors changed significantly too. Previous decisions in motions did not even mention TikTok. Yet today, TikTok was Meta’s fiercest rival. It was understandable that the FTC was unable to fix the boundaries of Meta’s product market. Accordingly, the court stated:

“Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the [FTC] must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so”

Therefore, the case against Meta was dismissed.

What Can we Take from this Development?

Meta did not have a monopoly in social networking and survived a very serious existential challenge—it will not have to break the company apart as a result of this decision.

The results of this decision were the polar opposite of the Google decision, where there was indeed a confirmed monopoly in Google Search and online ads. Why such a different result?

The first clue came right at the beginning of this Meta decision, when the judge noted that the question was whether Meta had monopoly power now or imminently. In particular, there was no determination about whether there had had been a monopoly in the past (as the FTC incorrectly alleged), because it was irrelevant. That is, Meta may have had a monopoly in the past, but the FTC had to show that it had one now. Unlike the judge in the Google decision, the judge in the Meta case was able to show that the test for monopoly power was not met, primarily because the FTC could not show that Meta currently had monopoly power (power over some market) and maintained it through means other than competition on the merits.

Second, unlike the Google decision, the product market had changed considerably since the FTC launched the Complaint, to the point where Meta’s strongest competitor right now, TikTok, had not even come on people’s radars. The judge made an important finding that consumers treated TikTok and YouTube as substitutes for Facebook and Instagram. After considering the evidence, the court found that TikTok had to now be included in the product market. This was significant and played a large role in the court dismissing the case. Most strikingly, the judge stated, “Even if YouTube were not included in the product market, including TikTok alone defeated the FTC’s case”.

Third, throughout the previous Meta decisions since 2021, there was foreshadowing by the court that the FTC may struggle to prove its allegations in court. This was not so in the Google case, which involved the company using exclusionary contracts and other means to create and maintain its monopoly, which it still has. It is not just the DOJ that thinks Google currently has the monopoly—the EU has also fined Google significantly for having and maintaining a monopoly in Search and online ads.

Fourth, it became clear that Meta’s market share had decreased, likely because of TikTok and YouTube—this made it difficult for the FTC to prove that there was a monopoly where Meta would have the opportunity to charge more, or demand more time spent. Recall that a main measure in this sphere was time spent, and the court stated that the amount of time that TikTok seemed to be taking from Meta’s apps was stunning. On the other hand, in Google’s case, Google had—and still has—89 percent of the global search engine market share.  

Sure, Mark Zuckerberg made comments in 2008 emails, “It is better to buy than compete”, but even if that were true, the court just showed that the FTC could no longer meet the test for holding a monopoly.

Some may question why there is such importance placed on antitrust trials. Speaking about its competition mission, the FTC states:

“Free and open markets are the foundation of a vibrant economy. Aggressive competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives consumers — both individuals and businesses — the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices, and greater innovation”