Reporter notes Meta’s lack of immediate comment post-verdict.

Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

The FTC likewise had no immediate public comment in this excerpt.

A federal judge ruled that Meta Platforms’ acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 do not violate U.S. antitrust law, rejecting the FTC’s claim that Meta illegally monopolized the social networking market.

Judge James Boasberg emphasized evaluating current competition over reliance on past pressures or old emails, noting the online social landscape is dynamic and evolved since the deals.

The ruling found that the FTC failed to prove ongoing monopoly power and highlighted new competitors like TikTok reshaping market dynamics.

This is a developing story and may be updated as new information emerges.

If contested, the case could drag on for years, as the government may pursue an appeal.

The report is automated and reviewed by the editorial team, with standard disclosures about potential stock holdings.

Experts say the FTC could appeal, but the chances may be slim given the focus on current market dynamics rather than 2010s conditions.

The FTC did not immediately comment, and the case traces back to an investigation that began in the early days of the Trump administration.

The seven-week trial ended with a significant setback for the government, which filed the case in 2020.

Financial risk assessments show Meta remains financially stable, but regulatory and competitive pressures persist.

[

The article is partly behind a paywall but centers on the court ruling and its implications for Meta and its acquisitions.

The decision underscores the FTC’s burden to prove monopoly power amid a dynamic tech market and evolving consumer behavior.

The case originated in December 2020 during the Trump administration and carried political interpretations about Meta’s handling of misinformation.

Zuckerberg testified that early communications cited by the FTC reflect initial considerations and may not reflect current competition.

This ruling sits within a broader antitrust landscape, contrasted with other tech cases and regulatory actions.

Meta’s win could influence how similar merger challenges are viewed and the competitive dynamics among social media and messaging platforms.

The ruling comes amid ongoing regulatory scrutiny of Big Tech and parallels other antitrust actions against major platforms.

Context surrounding the case reflects a broader regulatory crackdown and Silicon Valley sentiment ahead of potential future enforcement.

Meta welcomed the decision, saying it proves competition exists and underscores the benefits to users and innovation.

The court addressed the FTC’s evidentiary burden and how market definitions and competitive effects were argued.

The decision centers on FTC claims that the mergers reduced competition and harmed consumer choice.

The ruling focuses on today’s market landscape rather than historical power, signaling a shift in product market definitions.

Testimony from Meta executives, including Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Systrom, and Mosseri, highlighted competition pressures from TikTok and YouTube.

Executives stressed that competition comes from evolving platforms beyond traditional social networks.

Even if the FTC appeals, current rulings block mandates to unwind the acquisitions.

The ruling marks a major FTC setback; Meta’s stock rose briefly on the decision.

Despite initial skepticism, officials cited Meta’s user dominance on devices as part of the discussion, though the judge focused on current competition.

The judge’s decision cites Heraclitus to illustrate that the online landscape changes and one cannot reassess power through a static lens.

The original decade-spanning litigation stems from the Obama-era case that evolved under subsequent administrations, centering on monopoly questions.

The ruling reflects a broader shift toward evaluating monopoly power as platforms rapidly diversify and compete across features.

During the trial, Meta argued it faced ample competition and that acquisitions were strategic, noting regulators approved them at the time.

Observers note the market definition challenge and competition from short-form video, messaging, and other services in Meta’s argument.

Meta argued competition extends beyond traditional social networks, citing platforms like Reddit, X, TikTok, and Pinterest as competitors for ads and attention.

Zuckerberg testified that Facebook's popularity has been declining, according to trial testimony.

Zuckerberg explained Instagram was acquired for its superior product, not built in-house.

Meta’s balance sheet appears solid, though margins have weakened and insider selling has occurred.

Meta argued that competition from TikTok shows ongoing market rivalry and that the acquisitions contributed to growth.

Meta insisted the platforms grew with its investment and faced active competition from rivals like TikTok.

Outlook suggests the case could progress to a higher court if appealed, keeping the dispute in the spotlight.

The ruling signals that FTC did not meet its burden to prove monopoly power given a rapidly changing digital landscape.

Valuation indicators show Meta modestly undervalued with positive sentiment and strong institutional ownership.

Meta remains the largest social media company with billions of users, monetizing mainly through advertising.

Instagram and WhatsApp remain core to Meta’s revenue mix, and breaking them up would be a major setback.

The FTC could still pursue an appeal, though it’s unclear whether an appeal is planned.