admin
A federal judge delivered a clear rebuke to Washington’s favorite regulatory crusade on November 18, 2025, ruling that Meta is not a monopolist and will not be forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found the Federal Trade Commission failed to prove Meta currently wields monopoly power in the social networking space. This is a major win for free markets and a reminder that courts must rely on evidence, not political theater.
The lawsuit, filed years ago and aggressively pursued through changing administrations, accused Meta of a “buy-or-bury” strategy when it purchased Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 and asked the court to tear those businesses away. The FTC argued those acquisitions crushed competition, but the agency could not prove that those deals left consumers without real alternatives in 2025. The long, public trial exposed the weakness of an agency more interested in headlines than in proving harm to competition under the law.
Judge Boasberg’s opinion emphasized a simple truth: the online world moves fast, and competition comes from places the FTC tried to ignore, most notably TikTok and YouTube. His judgment pointed out that the market today looks nothing like the one the FTC described when it filed suit, undermining the agency’s cramped definition of competition. That pragmatic reading of the facts vindicates a marketplace that rewards innovation and punishes stagnation, not a regulator that seeks to punish success retroactively.
Meta unsurprisingly hailed the decision as validation that its products face fierce competition, while the FTC expressed disappointment and is reportedly weighing its next moves. The ruling makes plain that courts will not rubber-stamp expansive theories of monopoly based on bygone evidence or political pressure. Conservatives should celebrate that rule of law prevailed over Washington’s habit of trying to pick winners and losers in the tech sector.
Make no mistake: there are legitimate questions about privacy, content moderation, and the power of big platforms, but those are policy issues for Congress to debate and voters to decide — not blunt instruments for agencies to wield retroactively. The broader context is crucial: the government is testing the limits of antitrust enforcement against multiple Silicon Valley firms, and today’s decision should serve as a warning that regulatory overreach carries real economic risk. Washington’s habit of turning antitrust into a political cudgel would do more damage to American innovation than any single merger ever could.
This ruling is a win for hardworking Americans who benefit when companies compete and innovate instead of when bureaucrats rewrite history to score political points. If conservatives want to protect future innovation, we should push for clear rules that preserve competition without turning successful companies into scapegoats. Let today’s court decision remind lawmakers that liberty, fair play, and market discipline—not agency fiat—are what built America’s tech boom.
