Meta is not a monopolist, judge rules

"Boasberg noted that he'd warned the FTC that it faced an "uphill battle" in defining the market at issue and proving Meta held an illegal monopoly in it. Ultimately, he ruled, it failed to prove that Meta didn't face substantial competition from other kinds of social media platforms, particularly after the rapid rise of TikTok - which Meta cited as a major factor in its defense."

"The FTC argued that Meta had maintained illegal monopoly power in the narrow sector of the social media market by gobbling up nascent competitors Instagram and WhatsApp it feared could threaten its dominance. But throughout the trial, the FTC was dogged by questions about whether it could claim Meta still had that illegal monopoly in the face of a greatly-changed social media landscape. Boasberg said the government had to prove current or imminent illegal monopolization, not just past dominance."

Judge James Boasberg found Meta did not unfairly corner the "personal social networking" market that includes Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The ruling prevents immediate demands to undo Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions and can be appealed by the FTC. Boasberg said the FTC faced an uphill battle defining the market and proving illegal monopoly given competition from other social platforms, notably TikTok. The FTC argued Meta preserved monopoly power by acquiring nascent rivals, but the court said the government must show current or imminent monopolization rather than past dominance. The social media landscape has changed markedly in five years.

Read at The Verge