What you need to know
- Today (Nov 18), U.S. Judge James Boasberg ruled that Meta has not crossed the monopoly line with its social media apps.
- The ruling concerned the FTC’s claims that Instagram and WhatsApp were in the wrong; however, it was stated that those apps were being iterated on to better compete with TikTok.
- It’s because of the ByteDance app TikTok that Judge Boasberg ruled against the FTC’s claims that it was a “entertainment” app, claiming that even a ban case in India saw it, Instagram, and WhatsApp as “similar” social media apps.
In the long-standing court battle between the FTC and Meta’s alleged social media monopoly, a federal judge today (Nov 18) ruled in favor of the latter.
It was reported by Politico that federal judge James Boasberg ruled that Meta was not in violation of holding a social monopoly after acquiring WhatsApp and Instagram. Boasberg states, “The Court ultimately concludes that the agency has not carried its burden: Meta holds no monopoly in the relevant market.” There is one interesting aspect to note about this federal ruling, and that concerns TikTok. Instagram’s head, Adam Mosseri, previously stated that the platform was in “fierce competition” with TikTok to “attract users under 30.”
Even Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, argued that Facebook serves a “different role in the social media space,” as do Instagram and WhatsApp. Meta’s COO, Sheryl Sandberg, stated that the company did not acquire the latter in order to “neutralize” or control that particular market space, but rather to “improve and grow” them.
With this in mind, and with the inclusion of Meta seeking to better compete with TikTok in the social media space, it’s been reported that Judge James Boasberg rejected the FTC’s claim that TikTok falls within the entertainment category, not social media. The post claims Boasberg made this decision based on evidence that Instagram and WhatsApp “benefited” from TikTok’s brief blackout in the U.S. earlier in 2025.
Boasberg adds, “Like Heraclitus’s river, the rapids of social media rush along so fast that the Court has never even stepped into the same case twice. … Each time it examined Meta’s apps, they had changed. The competitors had, too.”
No harm, no foul
TikTok was in some hot water with the U.S. Government earlier this year, dodging a full ban for the second time in April. The Beijing-based company was publicly against divesting any portion of TikTok to the U.S., with it stating it would rather hop out of the country entirely, rather than see any part given away. However, TikTok and the U.S. government have been in talks since April about a potential divestiture agreement, which would have to see approval from the Chinese government, too.
At the time, ByteDance (TikTok’s parent company) stated, “an agreement has not been executed” and that “there are key matters to be resolved.” The Trump Administration has said that it “does not want TikTok to go dark.”
It was during this time in April, and earlier this year in January, when TikTok actually disappeared for a while, that Judge James Boasberg cited in his ruling. Moreover, Boasberg mentioned a similar scenario in India from 2020, when it banned TikTok. The judge stated that users viewed the apps as involved as “similar apps,” thus facilitating its rejection of the FTC’s claims in favor of Meta.
By
