# FTC v. Meta (2020–2026) **Filed:** December 9, 2020 on a 3–2 [[FTC]] vote · D.D.C., Judge [[James Boasberg]] · **Status:** on appeal to the D.C. Circuit This is the retrospective-merger case. The Commission sought divestiture of **[[Instagram]]** (acquired 2012 for $1 billion) and **[[WhatsApp]]** (acquired 2014 for $19 billion), arguing that [[Meta]] bought them to neutralize nascent competitive threats in "personal social networking services." The theory was the [[New Brandeis Movement]]'s: a decade of waved-through platform acquisitions had built a monopoly that the [[Consumer Welfare Standard]] was structurally unable to see, because none of the deals raised a price. The case was filed under a Republican chair (Joseph Simons), carried by [[Lina Khan]], and appealed under [[Andrew Ferguson]]. That makes it one of the few Big Tech cases all three FTC regimes have owned. ## The record - **June 28, 2021.** The original complaint was dismissed for failure to plead monopoly power. - **January 11, 2022.** An amended complaint survived. - **April–May 2025.** The case went to trial. - **November 18, 2025: judgment for Meta.** Boasberg held that the FTC had failed to prove *current* monopoly power, because the relevant market includes **TikTok and [[YouTube]]**: "When consumers cannot use Facebook and Instagram, they turn first to TikTok and YouTube." The court never reached whether the acquisitions themselves were unlawful. - **January 20, 2026.** The FTC appealed. Its Bureau of Competition director said Meta had kept its position "not through legitimate competition, but by buying its most significant competitive threats." - **May 2026.** Twenty-nine states and D.C. filed an amicus brief backing the FTC. Oral argument had not been scheduled as of the last check. ## The question on appeal The appeal turns on timing. Boasberg measured monopoly power at the time of the *verdict*, not the 2020 complaint. The FTC and the states argue that standard is unprecedented. It would let a defendant "wait out" years of litigation while the market shifts under it, especially in markets that move as fast as social media. That is why the case matters beyond Meta. If the D.C. Circuit affirms, a retrospective challenge to a platform acquisition becomes nearly unwinnable, because the market will always have changed by trial. The answer arrives just as the same question is being asked about AI acqui-hires. Compare the pattern in [[United States v. Google]]: liability won, but three remedies decisions produced no structural relief. ## See Also - [[US Antitrust and Monopoly Timeline]] · [[Legal Cases Hub]] - [[Lina Khan]] · [[Andrew Ferguson]] · [[New Brandeis Movement]] · [[Consumer Welfare Standard]] - [[United States v. Google]] · [[FTC v. Amazon]] · [[Ohio v. American Express]]