--- title: "The U.S. Federal Court ruled that Meta does not constitute a monopoly and does not need to divest its two core applications, Instagram and WhatsApp" type: "News" locale: "zh-HK" url: "https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/266441331.md" description: "The U.S. Federal District Court ruled that Meta Platforms does not constitute a monopoly and does not need to divest Instagram and WhatsApp. Despite the positive news, Meta's stock price still fell by 0.72%. The case originated from FTC allegations that Meta threatened emerging social platforms. The judge found that the definition of the social media market is no longer applicable and ruled that Meta operates in a highly competitive environment" datetime: "2025-11-18T22:27:04.000Z" locales: - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/266441331.md) - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/news/266441331.md) - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/266441331.md) --- > 支持的語言: [简体中文](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/266441331.md) | [English](https://longbridge.com/en/news/266441331.md) # The U.S. Federal Court ruled that Meta does not constitute a monopoly and does not need to divest its two core applications, Instagram and WhatsApp According to the Zhitong Finance APP, a key ruling was made by the U.S. Federal District Court on Tuesday, determining that Meta Platforms (META.US) did not constitute a monopoly, and its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in the 2010s did not violate antitrust laws. Meta was previously facing significant risks of being forced to divest the two major applications, but this concern has now been officially lifted. Despite the positive news, Meta's stock price still fluctuated at a low level in the afternoon, ultimately falling 0.72% to $597.69, consistent with the decline of the S&P 500 index. The case originated from a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during the final days of the Trump administration in 2020, accusing Meta of adopting a long-term strategy of "either being acquired or being crushed" to threaten emerging social platforms. During the trial, the FTC cited evidence claiming that this strategy was personally driven by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, aimed at preemptively eliminating potential competitors. However, presiding Judge James Boasberg pointed out in his ruling that the market definition relied upon by the FTC no longer reflects reality due to the rapid evolution of the social media industry in recent years. The core dispute of the case lies in how to define the market that Meta is "monopolizing." The FTC argued for a narrow market scope of "personal social networks," thereby excluding giants like YouTube and TikTok from the list of competitors to emphasize Meta's dominance. However, Judge Boasberg believed that even if this definition may have had some validity at the beginning of the case, it is no longer applicable today. The judge wrote in his opinion that the rapid changes in the social media environment mean that the court has "never tried the same case twice," as each time the case returns, both Meta's products and competitors have undergone significant changes. Meta welcomed the ruling, stating that the court recognized the intense competitive environment in which the company operates. Meta's Chief Legal Officer Jennifer Newstead emphasized in a statement that the company's products create value for users and businesses and represent American innovation. In stark contrast, the FTC expressed strong dissatisfaction. FTC Public Affairs Director Joe Simonson openly stated that he was "deeply disappointed" by the decision and unusually criticized Judge Boasberg, claiming that from the beginning "the deck was stacked against us," even mentioning that the judge is facing impeachment articles, drawing public attention. This is the second antitrust ruling this year that ultimately favors tech giants due to the rapid changes in industry dynamics. In a previous lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice against Google (GOOG.US, GOOGL.US), although the court ruled that Google violated laws in its search business, the rise of AI search tools posed a challenge to Google's dominant position, leading the judge to adopt a relatively "light" approach in penalties. Such cases show that courts are increasingly considering dynamic competition in the tech industry when handling antitrust cases, rather than relying solely on static market shares as the basis for rulings ### 相關股票 - [Meta Platforms (META.US)](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/META.US.md) ## 相關資訊與研究 - [Instagram tests a feature to let you see your ex's Stories without a trace — and it's going to cost you](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/281134560.md) - [Tech Wrap March 30: OPPO Find X9 Ultra, WhatsApp on CarPlay, Blaupunkt](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/281041030.md) - [Draft IT regulations may widen govt oversight on social media content](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/281133616.md) - [Govt proposes to bring independent news creators under MIB purview](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/281049326.md) - [WhatsApp's former security chief is 'not done fighting' after his lawsuit got dismissed](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/281414577.md)