The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced its intention to appeal a November 2025 ruling that favored Meta Platforms Inc. in a significant antitrust case. The FTC continues to assert that Meta has maintained a monopoly in personal social networking services through anticompetitive practices, particularly by acquiring potential competitors Instagram and WhatsApp.
In November 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled in favor of Meta, concluding that the company does not hold a monopoly in the social networking market. The judge noted that the social media landscape has evolved significantly, with platforms like TikTok and YouTube emerging as substantial competitors. He stated, “Meta holds no monopoly in the relevant market,” emphasizing the dynamic nature of the industry and the presence of formidable rivals.
The FTC’s appeal will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. FTC Bureau of Competition Director Daniel Guarnera emphasized the agency’s commitment to promoting fair competition, stating, “The U.S. economy thrives when competition can flourish and U.S. businesses compete fairly against one another. Yet Meta has maintained its dominant position and record profits for well over a decade not through legitimate competition, but by buying its most significant competitive threats.” He further noted that the FTC will continue its efforts to ensure that competition can thrive across the country to benefit all Americans and U.S. businesses.
Meta has not yet responded to the FTC’s announcement of the appeal. Previously, the company argued that the FTC failed to demonstrate that Meta possesses monopoly power, contending that the evidence showed no independent market for “personal social networking services.” Meta maintained that it competes with a diverse range of social apps, including TikTok and YouTube, and that its platforms have continuously improved over time.
The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for the tech industry, particularly concerning how acquisitions of potential competitors are viewed under antitrust laws. The case underscores the ongoing debate over the balance between fostering innovation through acquisitions and maintaining competitive markets.