According to Gizmodo, Judge James Boasberg ruled Tuesday that Meta does not have an illegal social media monopoly despite acquiring Instagram 13 years ago and WhatsApp 11 years ago. The Federal Trade Commission’s case, which took five years to build, collapsed because the agency couldn’t prove Meta currently holds monopoly power in social media advertising. The judge specifically cited TikTok’s rise as evidence that competition exists, noting consumers are shifting “massive amounts of time” from Meta’s apps to competitors. Internal messages showed Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg stating “It is better to buy than compete” and that acquisitions bought them time to integrate features before competitors could scale. Ultimately, the ruling means Meta avoids potentially being forced to sell off Instagram or WhatsApp after more than a decade of ownership.
The shifting monopoly math
Here’s the thing about this ruling: it basically says if you’re dominant long enough for someone else to eventually challenge you, your past monopoly behavior doesn’t count. The FTC showed Zuckerberg literally writing that he was buying time and that acquisitions were preferable to competition. But because TikTok came along years later and stole users, suddenly Meta’s past actions don’t matter? That seems like a pretty convenient loophole for any company that wants to snap up competitors and enjoy years of market dominance before eventually facing real competition.
And it’s not just Meta benefiting from this logic. Google recently dodged major penalties in its own antitrust case because judges decided generative AI might disrupt search dominance. So now the playbook is clear: dominate for a decade, then point to emerging technologies as proof you’re not a monopoly anymore. Never mind that you enjoyed all the benefits of being one during those critical growth years.
What this means for competition
The judge made a fair point about the market evolving. Social media has shifted heavily toward video, and TikTok absolutely dominates that space. YouTube remains massive for longer-form content. Consumers do have alternatives now that didn’t exist when Meta was buying up every potential threat. But does that erase the competitive harm caused by absorbing Instagram and WhatsApp before they could become true competitors?
Look at the timing here. Instagram was acquired in 2012 for $1 billion when it had about 30 million users. WhatsApp cost $19 billion in 2014 with 450 million users. Those were strategic moves to eliminate future competition, and they worked beautifully for years. Now Meta gets to keep those assets because the market eventually produced new competitors? That’s like saying it’s okay to rob a bank as long as someone eventually opens another bank across town.
The real question is: what message does this send to other would-be monopolists? Basically, go ahead and buy your competitors – just hope someone disrupts your market before regulators finally get around to doing something about it.
