Meta beats FTC antitrust case, keeps Instagram and WhatsApp
[ad_1]
- ■
Meta wins FTC antitrust case after Judge James Boasberg rules commission failed to prove current monopoly power
- ■
FTC sought to force Meta to sell Instagram ($1B, 2012) and WhatsApp ($19B, 2014) acquisitions
- ■
Court sided with Meta’s argument that TikTok and YouTube now compete directly with Facebook and Instagram
- ■
Victory protects Meta from breakup and could influence future tech antitrust cases
Meta just delivered a crushing blow to federal regulators, winning its high-stakes antitrust battle with the FTC after seven months of testimony. Judge James Boasberg ruled Tuesday that the commission failed to prove Meta currently holds monopoly power in social networking, despite the company’s $20 billion acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. This victory shields Meta from being forced to spin off its prized properties and sets a major precedent for how courts evaluate tech competition in the TikTok era.
Meta just scored the biggest regulatory victory in Big Tech’s recent history. Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington delivered a decisive win for Mark Zuckerberg’s company Tuesday, ruling that the Federal Trade Commission failed to prove Meta maintains monopoly power in social networking. The seven-month trial that began in April centered on whether Meta should be forced to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp – acquisitions that cost the company $20 billion combined. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now,” Boasberg wrote in his memorandum opinion. “The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so.” The ruling represents a stunning reversal for the FTC’s most aggressive antitrust push against social media platforms. The commission originally filed the case five years ago, arguing that Meta’s 2012 Instagram acquisition for $1 billion and 2014 WhatsApp purchase for $19 billion were anti-competitive moves designed to eliminate threats to Facebook’s dominance. But Meta’s defense hinged on a simple argument that ultimately won the day: the social media landscape has fundamentally changed since those deals were struck. The company successfully convinced Boasberg that platforms like TikTok and YouTube now represent direct competition that didn’t exist when Facebook was buying up potential rivals. “People treat TikTok and YouTube as substitutes for Facebook and Instagram, and the amount of competitive overlap is economically important,” the judge wrote, noting that the FTC “offers no empirical evidence of substitution whatsoever.” The courtroom drama featured testimony from Meta’s biggest names, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former COO Sheryl Sandberg, and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom. Their collective message was clear: Meta isn’t the untouchable giant it once appeared to be. Instead, it’s scrambling to keep up with newer competitors that have captured massive user attention. Boasberg seemed particularly swayed by evidence showing how user behavior has shifted toward video content, where TikTok and YouTube dominate. “The most-used part of Meta’s apps is thus indistinguishable from the offerings on TikTok and YouTube,” he observed. The judge noted that “consumers are reallocating massive amounts of time from Meta’s apps” to these newer platforms, which has “forced Meta to invest gobs of cash to keep up.” This wasn’t the FTC’s first swing at Meta. Boasberg initially , saying the agency lacked evidence that Facebook held market power. The FTC came back with an amended complaint featuring more detailed user metrics and competitive analysis, which allowed the case to proceed in 2022. But even with additional evidence, the commission couldn’t overcome Meta’s core argument about market evolution. The timing of this victory is particularly significant for Meta, which has been investing heavily in competing with TikTok through its Reels product and pivoting toward the metaverse. The company can now pursue acquisitions and strategic moves without the specter of forced divestiture hanging over its most valuable properties. The ruling also arrives just two months after caught a break in its own antitrust battle. While Google was found to hold an illegal monopoly in internet search, Judge Amit Mehta decided against forcing the company to sell its Chrome browser, despite Department of Justice requests. For the broader tech industry, Meta’s win signals that courts may be more willing to consider how quickly digital markets evolve when evaluating antitrust claims. The “big tech is inherently monopolistic” narrative that dominated regulatory thinking for years is now facing serious legal challenges. “Meta is not a monopolist insulated from competition,” Boasberg concluded. “The Court finds the evidence favoring Meta on this issue both credible and convincing.” The FTC has not yet announced whether it will appeal the decision, but Tuesday’s ruling represents a major setback for Chair Lina Khan’s aggressive approach to tech regulation.
[ad_2]
Source link
Post Comment