Six days ago, Meta won their Antitrust case in the United States when U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ruled that Meta does not hold an illegal monopoly in the social networking market, handing the company a major win against the Federal Trade Commission. His decision means Meta won’t be forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp — two of its most valuable properties. Their victory represents a watershed moment for Big Tech litigation, and the implications could ripple through the ongoing cases challenging Apple and Google’s dominance. But what does this mean for the other tech giants facing similar scrutiny?
The FTC had argued that Meta’s 2012 acquisition of Instagram and its 2014 purchase of WhatsApp for $19 billion were anticompetitive moves designed to eliminate emerging rivals. The agency’s case hinged on proving that Meta possessed monopoly power and that these acquisitions suppressed competition. However, Judge Boasberg found the FTC’s evidence unconvincing, particularly regarding Meta’s current market position. Boasberg stated Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now, the Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so. The judge emphasized that for the FTC to obtain the injunction it sought, it needed to establish a current or imminent violation of antitrust law — not just historical wrongdoing.
What’s particularly significant about this ruling is how the judge evaluated Meta’s competitive position. Boasberg found persuasive evidence that consumers are reallocating substantial time away from Meta’s applications toward competing platforms like TikTok and YouTube. He noted in his decision that Meta accounts for only a modest share of the total time users spend on social media and that this share is declining. The rise of AI-generated content and the emergence of platforms like TikTok fundamentally changed the landscape from when Meta initially acquired Instagram and WhatsApp. This evolution of the market weakened the FTC’s argument that Meta maintained an impenetrable monopoly.
Now here’s where things get interesting for Apple and Google. The Meta decision could significantly impact how judges evaluate monopoly claims against other tech companies, particularly concerning what constitutes current monopoly power versus past dominance. Legal experts have noted that antitrust challenges are becoming increasingly difficult to win without updated legislation, suggesting future cases may rely more on new regulatory frameworks than courtroom victories.
Apple’s situation differs substantially from Meta’s, though the Meta ruling could still influence the judicial approach. The DOJ filed its antitrust lawsuit against Apple in March 2024, alleging that the company illegally monopolizes the smartphone market through restrictive practices targeting third-party developers. The government contends that Apple blocks innovative apps, suppresses cloud gaming services, limits digital wallets, and prevents cross-platform messaging improvements. Apple moved to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2024, but a judge denied the motion in June 2025, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The Meta precedent could influence how judges assess whether Apple’s ecosystem restrictions constitute illegal monopolization, particularly regarding proof of current market dominance and consumer harm.
The critical question for Apple’s case mirrors what emerged in Meta’s: can the government prove Apple maintains current monopoly power, or is it simply regulating the company’s business practices? If judges apply the stricter standard that Boasberg established — requiring demonstration of present-day monopoly power rather than past dominance — Apple may have more ammunition in defending its closed ecosystem approach. However, the circumstances differ significantly. Unlike Meta’s social media competitors, there genuinely aren’t many viable alternatives to the iPhone in the premium smartphone market, which could work against Apple in any future trial.
Google’s situation presents the most complex scenario. The company has already lost two major antitrust cases. In its search monopoly case, Judge Brinkema ruled in 2024 that Google violated antitrust law, and in September 2025, she imposed remedies requiring Google to end exclusionary contracts and share data with competitors. The more consequential case involves Google’s ad tech business. Judge Brinkema has already determined that Google illegally monopolized certain segments of the advertising technology market. She’s currently deciding on remedies, with the DOJ requesting that Google divest its ad exchange and publish its auction code, while Google proposes less dramatic behavioral remedies like contractual commitments and interoperability requirements.
The Meta decision could help Google in its ad tech remedies phase. If judges are increasingly skeptical that forced divestitures are necessary to address monopoly concerns — as Boasberg’s reasoning suggests — Judge Brinkema might lean toward behavioral remedies rather than structural breakups. Boasberg’s emphasis on market dominance and the importance of proving current harm could resonate with her thinking. However, antitrust specialists believe the ad tech case presents one of the clearest opportunities for forcing a tech company to divest, so the Meta precedent may have limited impact on this particular matter.
The broader implication of Meta’s victory is that the government faces an increasingly high bar in proving monopoly violations. The FTC must demonstrate not just that a company engaged in anticompetitive conduct years ago, but that it maintains dominance today in markets that are rapidly evolving. This standard particularly benefits the tech companies that can argue — as Meta successfully did — that new platforms have emerged and consumer preferences have shifted.
Here’s the thing, folks: For Apple and Google, the Meta ruling signals that regulators cannot simply rely on historical market dominance or past acquisitions. They must prove current market power and show that restricted practices actively prevent competition. This doesn’t necessarily doom these cases, but it raises the evidentiary burden considerably. As Big Tech litigation continues evolving, Boasberg’s decision establishing this stricter standard will likely become a reference point that shapes how future monopoly claims are evaluated across the entire industry.
With that.. At least with the Meta case it appears my opinion that Microsofts case back in the 1990s would affect these cases appears to have been correct.
When you work with the technology every day you have a different understanding of the topics than others.