admin
A federal judge delivered a resounding victory for common-sense law and free markets on November 18, 2025, ruling that Meta is not an illegal monopoly and rejecting the Federal Trade Commission’s bid to force the company to divest Instagram and WhatsApp. The decision makes clear that regulators cannot simply declare a business guilty because it got big — they must show current monopoly power, not retroactive guilt for past success.
The FTC’s case, filed in 2020, accused Facebook — now Meta — of buying up promising rivals in a “buy-or-bury” strategy meant to choke off competition, and it sought one of the most radical remedies imaginable: tearing apart a company that had generated enormous consumer benefits. That theory always felt more like political theater than sound antitrust law, and the judge agreed the agency failed to prove its claims.
Judge James Boasberg’s opinion focused on a simple truth the regulatory class refuses to accept: the digital landscape changes fast. The court pointed to TikTok, YouTube and other platforms as real competitors that have eaten into the market share once dominated by Facebook’s early era, undermining the FTC’s narrow market definition. The judge’s recognition that social apps have merged into one fierce battleground was an important reality check for policymakers who pretend markets are static.
Meta’s legal team and public statements celebrated the ruling, saying it vindicated American innovation and the right of companies to compete and evolve without fear of politically motivated breakups. That reaction is not arrogance — it’s a defense of entrepreneurship and the tens of thousands of jobs and services built on platforms that millions of Americans use every day. The court was right to protect companies that invest, innovate, and adapt rather than kneecap them because some regulators think big equals bad.
Let’s be blunt: this case was always about political signaling more than consumer harm. Washington’s appetite to punish success has become a bipartisan pastime, but judges must hold the line against arbitrary enforcement that would chill investment and handcuff American tech leadership. Conservatives should celebrate a ruling that reaffirms the rule of law over regulatory theater and preserves the incentive to build great products here at home.
Beyond symbolism, the ruling has concrete consequences for other high-profile tech cases and the FTC’s credibility. A clear judicial rebuke weakens the agency’s playbook to unmake deals retroactively and should remind enforcers that sound antitrust policy requires data, not ideological narratives. If regulators want to protect consumers they must show actual, present harm — not litigate grudges about size or political influence.
Hardworking Americans who believe in enterprise and competition should take pride in today’s outcome: the court sided with innovation, not punishment. Law-abiding companies that invest in new products and hire people deserve a fair field, not a constant threat of breakup whenever they succeed. Washington would do well to learn this lesson — freedom to compete is how we keep America first.
