On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 U.S. Federal Judge James Boasberg dismissed the anti-trust case against Meta, parent company of Facebook, saying there was no “monopoly” conducted on their part. The case centered on Meta’s previous acquisitions of What’s App and Instagram and whether this violated anti-trust federal law.
Meta
In his article entitled, “The Bad Reasoning in the Meta Antitrust Ruling Isn’t Even the Worst Part,” New York Times reporter Tim Wu writes:
The government charged that Meta, then called Facebook, broke the law when it bought its competitors Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014. Judge Boasberg threw out the case by concluding that Meta lacks monopoly power now, when the relevant question should have been whether it had monopoly power at the time.
In my opinion, it comes down here for both sides is the law needs to exactly define what is a “monopoly.”
Apparently Judge Boasberg was reading current federal law and concluded with what he read that Meta was not in violation. He pointed out the existence of Tik Tok and You Tube as significant competition to Meta. Wu mentions that we need to look at the marketplace over 10 years ago to accurately define monopoly in this case regarding What’s App and Instagram.
History
A point that Wu seems to overlook, and I feel is relevant, is the number of acquisitions by Meta, not just a few. According to Wikipedia, Meta has acquired just over 90 companies and has spent around $30 Billion to do so—that’s B as in Billion.
In addition, they have a history of acquiring small companies and then dissolving them and retaining their employees. I have a previous post that highlights a 2010 YouTube video of Mark Zuckerberg stating this at an event.
Wu further states in his article:
“Does anyone seriously doubt that Meta is the kind of company that antitrust laws were designed to restrain?”
Well, if that’s the case, perhaps the “antitrust laws” need to be expanded. They should include other criteria such as the number of acquisitions and specific monopolistic “behaviors”, such as acquiring firms and dissolving them and pursuing hostile takeovers. Convenient way to eliminate the competition, isn’t it? Is this not monopolistic behavior?
Does this make sense? Why has it not been done up to now? If this were enacted into law it could give other judges a clearer path towards determining and proving monopoly. The definition specifics would need to be worked out. It could also be used to fight private equity.
