US Judge Says Meta Did Not Hold Illegal Social Media Monopoly

Published: 19 November 2025 Wednesday . The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

A US federal judge has ruled that Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, did not violate antitrust laws, dealing a significant blow to the Federal Trade Commission’s high-profile attempt to break up the social-media giant. The decision is one of the most consequential rulings involving Big Tech in recent years and will shape how far regulators can go in challenging the dominance of major digital platforms.

US District Judge Karen Bryson concluded that the FTC failed to prove that Meta maintained an illegal monopoly in the personal social networking market or harmed consumers through anticompetitive behavior. Her ruling came after nearly three years of litigation, amended complaints, and intense scrutiny surrounding Meta’s business strategies, including its acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

In the ruling, Judge Bryson wrote that although Meta is undeniably influential in the social-media industry, influence on its own does not equal an unlawful monopoly. The FTC, she said, was unable to prove that Meta restricted user choice, prevented competition, or deliberately stifled innovation by using exclusionary tactics. The agency’s central claim argued that Meta acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to neutralize emerging threats, but the judge said this theory lacked sufficient evidence. She reminded that both acquisitions were reviewed and approved at the time, and the FTC did not provide convincing new information showing these deals were anticompetitive.

The court also found that the FTC’s definition of the social networking market was too narrow and failed to acknowledge the competitive pressure Meta faces from TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and other platforms. Bryson emphasized that in today’s environment, users frequently use multiple platforms for communication, entertainment, and content creation. This multi-platform behavior makes it harder to argue that Meta holds a closed-off monopoly over social networking.

The ruling is a setback for the Biden administration’s aggressive antitrust agenda, particularly under FTC Chair Lina Khan, who has sought to challenge what she describes as the concentrated power of Big Tech. The lawsuit was widely viewed as a major test of whether US regulators could attempt to unwind past mergers and control tech-sector consolidation. The FTC claimed that Meta’s pattern of acquiring rising competitors created a “buy-or-bury” culture that allegedly harmed developers, advertisers, and consumers by depriving them of choice.

However, Judge Bryson was not convinced. She wrote that the FTC did not adequately prove that Meta acted with the intent of unlawfully stifling competition. Instead, she described the tech landscape as fluid, where new features, trends, and competitors rapidly emerge. She noted that TikTok’s explosive rise and YouTube’s dominance in video sharing are clear examples of how Meta must continually adapt to stay relevant.

Meta welcomed the court’s decision and issued a statement calling it a win for innovation and user choice. The company said the ruling confirms that the social-media market is competitive and continues to evolve rapidly. Meta has long argued that it faces significant competition from both established rivals and emerging platforms. It has also cited internal data showing declines in engagement among younger users, which it views as evidence that it does not control the market.

The FTC responded cautiously, saying it is reviewing the ruling and considering next steps, including a potential appeal. A spokesperson for the agency stated that Meta’s history of acquiring rising competitors still raises broader concerns about consolidation in the tech sector. They added that the FTC remains committed to examining all legal options to protect competition in digital markets.

Several legal experts have weighed in, noting that while the FTC can appeal, success is uncertain. Courts have increasingly shown reluctance to expand antitrust law without clear evidence of consumer harm such as increased prices, reduced quality, or explicit exclusion of rivals. Because most social-media services are free, regulators often struggle to prove classic consumer harm under existing legal frameworks.

The ruling is expected to send ripples through Silicon Valley. Major companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and TikTok are watching the outcome closely, as it may influence how regulators pursue future cases. Analysts say the decision could make it harder for the FTC to challenge older mergers that were previously approved, especially if they cannot demonstrate direct, quantifiable harm to consumers. Instead, regulators may need to push for updates to US competition laws to address the unique dynamics of digital markets.

Lawmakers were quick to react. Some progressive politicians argued that the decision underscores the need to modernize antitrust laws, which they believe were created for a different era and are ill-equipped to handle the complexities of digital platforms. Others, however, applauded the ruling as a necessary check on regulatory overreach. They argued that being successful or large in the tech industry should not be treated as a crime in itself.

For Meta, the ruling provides temporary relief. The company still faces intense scrutiny on several other fronts, including privacy practices, content moderation policies, and its handling of political misinformation. Meta is also under pressure from regulators in Europe, where lawmakers have already imposed strict rules and heavy fines targeting the company’s data practices and advertising model.

Meanwhile, Meta continues to invest in new technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual worlds. The company views these emerging fields as critical to its long-term strategy as traditional social networking faces slower growth and increasing competition. Executives believe the ruling will allow them to focus more on innovation rather than drawn-out legal battles.

For the FTC, the loss is significant but not necessarily the end of its efforts. The agency still has active antitrust cases against Amazon, Google, and Apple, each involving different aspects of tech-sector dominance. These cases will continue to test the boundaries of antitrust law and the government’s ability to challenge market power in the digital age.

In the broader context, the Meta ruling highlights the ongoing tension between rapid technological innovation and the slower pace of regulatory oversight. It raises fundamental questions about how to ensure fair competition in markets defined not by price but by data, user engagement, and algorithm-driven content. As policymakers and regulators grapple with these challenges, the case serves as a reminder of how complex and evolving the digital economy has become.

The ruling marks a clear victory for Meta and underscores the difficulties regulators face in building successful antitrust cases against big technology companies. While it does not close the door on future scrutiny, it signals that courts may require stronger, more precise evidence when addressing alleged anticompetitive behavior in fast-changing digital markets.