A federal judge has put a stake through yet another overreaching regulatory crusade, ruling that Meta is not a monopolist and will not be forced to break off Instagram and WhatsApp — a vindication of common sense and the rules of law. The long-running case, which targeted acquisitions made in 2012 and 2014, ends the government’s most aggressive attempt yet to punish corporate success for growing market share. This decision matters because it restores a basic principle: past success and acquisitions are not automatically illegal without clear proof of present monopoly power.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg explained why the FTC’s argument collapsed: the social media landscape has shifted dramatically, with rivals like TikTok and YouTube reshaping how Americans spend time online and undercutting any claim of enduring dominance. The court recognized that markets evolve and that regulators can’t freeze the tech sector in amber to punish companies for deals cleared years ago. That pragmatic reading of competition law is precisely what conservatives have long insisted the courts must protect against regulatory overreach.
The FTC had accused Meta of a “buy-or-bury” strategy, saying Facebook’s purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp were meant to snuff out rivals rather than compete on the merits — a politically popular story but one that strained legal standards and evidence. Plaintiffs stretched to define a narrow “personal social networking” market while ignoring how consumers really substitute between apps, and the trial exposed those weaknesses. The result should caution career bureaucrats who want to rewrite economic policy through litigation rather than persuade voters or seek statutory change.
This ruling is a win for consumers and for innovators who know that the marketplace, not regulators in Washington, decides winners and losers. Forcing breakups as a matter of ideological preference would have been a destructive precedent, chilling investment and rewarding political rent-seeking. Conservatives should celebrate a court that upheld property rights, transaction finality, and the competitive dynamism that has made America the engine of technological progress.
Make no mistake: this victory doesn’t mean Big Tech is above scrutiny, but it does mean our system of laws still requires proof and evidence, not headlines and political theater. The FTC and allied activists will predictably keep pushing, and Congress remains the proper place to craft any updated rules if necessary — not unelected prosecutors trying to remake industry by litigation. Americans who believe in free enterprise and due process should view today’s judgment as a reminder that the courts can still check runaway regulatory zeal.
