The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken steps to prolong its antitrust battle against Meta by appealing a recent ruling that deemed the company does not hold an illegal monopoly. The appeal was filed on Tuesday with the U.S. appeals court for the District of Columbia, following a November decision in favor of Meta that threatened the viability of the tech giant.
Daniel Guarnera, the director of the FTC’s competition bureau, emphasized the agency’s stance that Meta has maintained its dominant market position for over a decade not through innovation, but by acquiring its strongest competitors. “Meta has maintained its dominant position and record profits not through legitimate competition, but by buying its most significant competitive threats,” Guarnera stated.
The FTC has voiced its commitment to fighting this historic case, linking it to broader efforts to ensure a competitive landscape in the U.S. for both consumers and businesses. In response, Meta defended the district court’s ruling, asserting that it recognizes the intense competition the company faces and reaffirming its commitment to innovation and investment in the U.S.
The ongoing tensions between Big Tech and regulators have escalated, particularly as tech leaders have sought to align themselves with influential political figures. In recent months, various tech executives have made substantial financial contributions to President Trump’s inauguration fund and have promised significant investments across the country. Despite these efforts and some regulatory leniency, several high-profile monopoly cases initiated during Trump’s first term remain active.
Judge James Boasberg’s ruling in November found that the FTC had not convincingly demonstrated that Meta continued to wield monopoly power through a so-called “buy-or-bury” strategy. The court highlighted that the FTC failed to prove that Meta’s previous acquisitions, such as Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, constituted unlawful actions that harmed competition. A senior FTC official voiced concerns about this judicial interpretation, arguing that it sidestepped critical issues surrounding the competitive landscape.
Judge Boasberg also noted that while Meta may have held monopoly power in the past, the agency needed to show that this power persisted at the time of the trial. The FTC disagrees, contending that the necessity to demonstrate ongoing monopoly status at this stage is fundamentally flawed. They argue that a dominant firm should not be allowed to neutralize competition through acquisitions.
Meanwhile, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has made efforts to cultivate a relationship with Trump, publicly praising him and adapting the company’s content moderation policies in reaction to Republican accusations of bias against conservative voices. Nonetheless, attempts by Meta to lobby for an out-of-court settlement have reportedly not borne fruit.
As the U.S. continues to grapple with regulatory approaches to Big Tech, the FTC’s ongoing appeal marks a critical juncture in its antitrust agenda. A broader context reveals struggles in challenging the power of major tech entities, evidenced by other recent legal decisions where judges have refrained from imposing structural remedies despite finding monopolistic behavior, like in the case involving Google. The challenges of regulating such influential companies illustrate the complexities of antitrust enforcement in the modern digital economy.
