Washington, D.C. — Following a decision from Judge James Boasberg in the Federal Trade Commission’s challenge against Meta’s social media monopoly, ruling the company does not hold an illegal social media monopoly given the rise in popularity of other platforms, the American Economic Liberties Project released the following statement.

“This is a colossally wrong decision by Judge Boasberg, one that turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it,” said Nidhi Hegde, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project. “Judge Boasberg has purposefully ignored the overwhelming evidence of how Meta became a monopoly – not by building a better product, but by buying its rivals to shut down any real competitors before they could grow. These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family. By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side.”

“If the courts are unwilling to enforce the law,” Hegde added, “Congress must step in and break up Big Tech, prohibit addictive surveillance algorithms, and create the conditions for building a better future.”

Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today threw out the Federal Trade Commission’s long-running case seeking to unwind Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC originally sued in December 2020, arguing that Facebook bought both apps (Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014) to block rising threats in the personal social networking market. After an early dismissal in 2021, the court let a strengthened complaint move ahead in 2022, leading to years of discovery and a six-week trial in the spring of 2025.

In his final Order, Judge Boasberg ruled that the FTC had not proven Meta currently holds monopoly power in the market for “personal social networking services” (or friends and family sharing), largely because he folded TikTok and YouTube into the same market and concluded that their popularity reduces Meta’s share below illegal levels.

The heart of the lawsuit concerns Meta’s deliberate strategy to eliminate competitive threats. Internal documents show that Facebook acquired Instagram because it was easier to buy than compete, especially as users shifted to mobile. The WhatsApp deal, likewise, was driven by fears the messaging app could grow into a rival social platform. Instead of innovating, Meta chose to neutralize its competitors — a textbook violation of the antitrust laws meant to protect consumers and foster competition. Meta has meanwhile argued that it faces rigorous competition from other social media platforms, like LinkedIn (professional networks), TikTok (short-form video entertainment), Twitter (professional and news content) and YouTube (long-form video content). But contemporaneous records reveal that Meta and other social media executives understood that users flock to different platforms for different purposes, and that Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp were specifically designed to operate in a distinct submarket for family and friend connections.

Learn more about Economic Liberties here.

###

The American Economic Liberties Project works to ensure America’s system of commerce is structured to advance, rather than undermine, economic liberty, fair commerce, and a secure, inclusive democracy. Economic Liberties believes true economic liberty means entrepreneurs and businesses large and small succeed on the merits of their ideas and hard work; commerce empowers consumers, workers, farmers, and engineers instead of subjecting them to discrimination and abuse from financiers and monopolists; foreign trade arrangements support domestic security and democracy; and wealth is broadly distributed to support equitable political power.