In a landmark ruling with global repercussions for the tech industry, Meta Platforms Inc. has successfully defeated a monumental antitrust challenge brought by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The case, which posed an existential threat to the social media giant's structure, could have forced the company to divest its acquisitions, Instagram and WhatsApp.
Judge Rejects Monopoly Claims
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg delivered the decisive verdict on Tuesday, 18 November 2025, concluding a historic trial that wrapped up in late May. The judge's ruling explicitly stated that the FTC failed to prove that Meta currently holds a monopoly in the dynamic social networking landscape.
This outcome for Meta stands in stark contrast to recent rulings against other tech behemoths. It follows two separate judicial decisions that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both the search engine and online advertising markets, signalling a period of intensified regulatory scrutiny for an industry once accustomed to nearly unbridled expansion.
The Core of the Court's Decision
In his written ruling, Judge Boasberg addressed the core argument presented by the FTC. The regulatory body had contended that Meta competes within a narrow field of long-standing rivals and has maintained a monopoly through what it deemed anticompetitive acquisitions.
However, the judge emphasised that the burden of proof was on the agency to demonstrate present-day monopoly power. "Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now," Boasberg wrote. "The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so."
Implications for the Future of Tech
This ruling represents a massive victory for Meta and its business model, allowing it to continue operating its family of apps—Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—as a single entity. For regulators, the decision underscores the challenge of applying traditional antitrust frameworks to the fast-evolving digital economy, where market definitions are constantly in flux.
The case sets a significant precedent, potentially making it more difficult for regulators in the UK and elsewhere to pursue similar break-up actions against large technology firms without clear and contemporary evidence of monopolistic control.
