Judge Rules Meta Does Not Hold Illegal Monopoly in Social Media Networking

Judge James Boasberg said the Federal Trade Commission failed to show Meta held a monopoly.

Technology company Meta Platforms at a booth during the AI+Expo Special Competitive Studies Project in Washington on June 2, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

A federal judge has ruled against the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) case that Meta Platforms, the company behind Instagram and Facebook, engaged in illegal, anticompetitive behavior in the social media industry.

“Meta holds no monopoly in the relevant market,” U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said in an opinion on Nov. 18. “Judgment must therefore be entered in its favor.”

The case began in 2020 and reached trial in April, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifying about his intentions in developing the company.

FTC attorney Daniel Matheson accused the company of acquiring its competition—Instagram and WhatsApp—rather than competing with them.

With Meta’s purported monopoly power, he said, consumers lacked reasonable alternatives for interacting with people in their lives.

In a statement provided to The Epoch Times, a Meta spokesperson said Boasberg’s decision “recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition.”

“Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth,” the spokesperson said. “We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America.”

In a statement provided to The Epoch Times, the FTC said it was “deeply disappointed.”

“The deck was always stacked against us with Judge Boasberg, who is currently facing articles of impeachment,” FTC Director of Public Affairs Joe Simonson said. “We are reviewing all our options.”

Boasberg has encountered significant criticism from President Donald Trump during his second term. After he blocked Trump’s deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, the president called for his impeachment. Boasberg has also faced articles of impeachment from House Republicans and a misconduct complaint from the Justice Department.

The FTC attempted to show that Meta violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prevents businesses from monopolizing certain markets through anticompetitive conduct.

Boasberg, however, said that the FTC offered a flawed conception of the relevant market and failed to show that Meta enjoyed a monopoly.

At trial, the FTC argued that Meta was part of a market for “personal social networking” services, which included Snapchat and Instagram but was separate from another market containing TikTok and YouTube.

Boasberg disagreed, highlighting the competitive threat that TikTok poses to Meta and how users employed both TikTok and YouTube as substitutes for Meta’s products. “The Court ultimately finds that YouTube and TikTok belong in the product market, and they prevent Meta from holding a monopoly,” he said.

“Even if YouTube is out, including TikTok alone defeats the FTC’s case.”

He also rejected multiple arguments that the FTC offered to show that Meta exercised monopoly power. More specifically, he denied that Meta had suspiciously high profits and that it had degraded the quality of its products.

Although Instagram and Facebook are free to users, the FTC argued that Meta effectively increased the price of use by loading the platforms with ads. Boasberg found instead that the products’ quality has increased.

“In the end, the Court finds it impossible to believe that consumers would prefer the versions of Instagram and Facebook that existed a decade ago to the versions that exist today,” he said.

In a post on social media, former FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, whom Trump removed earlier this year, called on Congress to intervene.

“This lawsuit would have checked Meta’s grip on social networking,” he said. “It would have pried the company apart and likely forced its apps to compete against each other—and perhaps treat their users like people and not eyeballs to be monetized at all costs.”