An Obama-appointed federal judge held Tuesday that Meta is not an illegal monopoly.
District Court Judge James Boasberg concluded that Meta’s purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp did not violate antitrust laws, rejecting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) argument that the company holds a monopoly in the “personal social networking” market.
The landscape that existed when the FTC sued five years ago “has changed markedly,” Boasberg wrote.
“While it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down,” he wrote.
“With apps surging and receding, chasing one craze and moving on from others, and adding new features with each passing year, the FTC has understandably struggled to fix the boundaries of Meta’s product market,” Boasberg wrote.
“Even so, it continues to insist that Meta competes with the same old rivals it has for the last decade, that the company holds a monopoly among that small set, and that it maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive acquisitions,” he continued. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now.”
A spokesperson for Meta said the court’s decision “recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition.”
“Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth,” the company said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America.”
FTC’s Director of Public Affairs Joe Simonson said the agency is “deeply disappointed in this decision.”
“The deck was always stacked against us with Judge Boasberg, who is currently facing articles of impeachment,” Simonson said. “We are reviewing all our options.”
In September, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, declined to force Google to sell its Chrome browser as the DOJ requested.
Instead, Mehta required the company to share certain data with competitors and restricted it from signing exclusive contracts. He found last year that the company held an illegal monopoly on internet searches.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated with additional reporting and comment from the FTC.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
