Call it a win for common sense, but Meta recently emerged victorious in its antitrust case against the Federal Trade Commission.
The U.S. District Court affirmed what the reasonable already knew: Meta does not have a monopoly on social media and is in a constant battle to stay relevant amid competition from ever-changing directions.
The FTC attempted to justify what amounted to a frivolous lawsuit by putting forth a “market definition” for social media that excluded key players like TikTok and YouTube — platforms where users engage, interact and fight for the same screen time as Meta’s. To exclude TikTok from this lawsuit reveals how unserious the endeavor was — yet taxpayers had to foot the bill for it.
The antitrust lawsuit filed by the FTC extends beyond being merely wasteful when considering its proposed “remedies.” The agency sought to force Meta to divest WhatsApp — a service Meta has transformed into a high-quality, reliable and free global communications platform through years of investment. In much of the developing world, WhatsApp is the primary way people stay connected, and its security features and reliability depend on consistent (and sophisticated) support.
Who’s to say that any government-approved future owner of WhatsApp would go to the lengths Meta has to protect user privacy, or even keep the service free?
The other remedy the FTC sought was to force Meta to divest Instagram, even suggesting it should never have been allowed to buy it in the first place. This belief exists even though, when Meta first invested in Instagram, the app wasn’t generating revenue. Meta’s acquisition of Instagram made it the platform it is today and boosted its monthly users from 50 million to more than 2 billion. Why punish Meta for its success in what was once a highly risky investment?
Given that yesterday’s Instagram looks nothing like today’s, the case against Meta further erodes when we consider how little we know about the future of social media. Between investments in AI, metaverses and wearable devices, the only certainty about the future of social media is that it will bear little resemblance to the present. Believing Meta has a monopoly on such would suggest it has all the answers — essentially possessing a crystal ball. The fact that Meta has made large investments in the technologies suggests they are as curious as anyone to find out.
This ruling also serves as a reminder that courts can be fair and impartial when weighing antitrust claims, while prioritizing consumer welfare. It demonstrates that careful application of existing laws can produce a reasonable outcome; creating new laws isn’t the answer. Courts should strike the right balance by sticking to facts rather than speculation.
As Meta and many others work to decipher the future of social media, all will face plenty of competition — including from places previously unimaginable.
Thankfully, the U.S. District Court has set a precedent that encourages businesses to pursue the future of social media, knowing they will be rewarded for their success.