FTC appeals dismissal of monopolization case against Meta to DC Circuit

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a formal notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeking to revive its seven-year challenge to Meta Platforms’ acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The filing comes after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg dismissed the agency’s monopolization claims in November 2025, concluding that Meta does not currently hold a monopoly in personal social networking services.

The FTC’s effort to overturn the dismissal marks the latest and perhaps most consequential test of whether U.S. antitrust enforcers can use merger and monopolization laws to unwind deals completed years ago. The agency contends that Meta unlawfully preserved its dominance by buying emerging rivals instead of competing with them, a theory set out in the FTC’s 2020 complaint. Meta bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014; regulators did not block those deals at the time.

Judge Boasberg based his dismissal on contemporary market evidence presented at trial, including data the court cited showing Americans spend only 17 percent of their Facebook time viewing content from friends and 7 percent of Instagram time on such activity. The ruling emphasized the rise of short video consumption, notably Reels on Meta’s platforms, and pointed to competition from other apps such as TikTok as undermining the FTC’s claim of current monopoly power.

The FTC said it would press the case forward. In a press release titled "FTC Appeals Ruling in Meta Monopolization Case," the agency said its position "has not changed." Joe Simonson, the FTC’s director of public affairs, told reporters, "Our position has not changed. Meta violated our antitrust laws when it acquired Instagram and WhatsApp. Consequently, American consumers have suffered from that monopoly." A senior, unnamed FTC official criticized Judge Boasberg’s legal approach, saying he took "a very odd path" by focusing on market position at the time of trial rather than assessing monopoly status over a longer period, a choice the official called a "fundamental error" that allowed alleged misconduct to be "swept… under the rug."

Meta welcomed the district court’s dismissal and framed the appeal as a continuation of an effort it believes cannot succeed. A company spokesperson said the decision was "correct, and recognizes the fierce competition we face." Meta and its supporters have cited the surge of rivals and the judge’s usage data as proof that the company does not currently wield monopolistic control of personal social networking.

The appeal will require the D.C. Circuit to consider key legal questions that animated the trial: whether monopoly status should be judged on the market as it exists at the time of trial or over the historical period that includes the alleged acquisitions, and whether the FTC’s evidence about Meta’s acquisition strategy and intent is sufficient to sustain a monopolization claim despite present-day indicators of competition.

Legal observers say the case could take months or years on appeal and might eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, with wide implications for how courts treat past mergers and the scope of antitrust enforcement against major technology platforms. For regulators and tech companies alike, the dispute will help define whether acquiring nascent rivals can be treated as a lasting injury to competition, even when markets evolve and new competitors emerge.