Meta wins its antitrust case – what does this mean for the balance of truthful content online?

Meta has just won a major antitrust case in the US, ending the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FTC) attempt to force it to sell Instagram and WhatsApp. The regulator argued these acquisitions were designed to crush competition, but the court disagreed. The judge pointed to TikTok and YouTube as proof that Meta doesn’t dominate social media the way it once did. The market has changed, and the FTC couldn’t prove Meta still holds a monopoly.  

This is a serious setback for antitrust enforcement. The case was meant to show that regulators could rein in big tech using laws written years ago, but instead it highlights how hard it is to apply those rules when platforms evolve so quickly. Meta comes away stronger and more emboldened, and so will the rest of the US big tech giants, which own the majority of the largest global social platforms. This creates a potential issue – every one of these is run by people who are very close to the current President of the US. They are in control of the flow of information online and, in the current climate, it is in their interest to ensure any coverage reflects the President’s own personal view of the world. 

For advertisers and brands, this ruling means stability. Instagram and WhatsApp will remain under Meta control. It’s also very likely that Meta will continue with its acquisition strategy. 

What this does is serve as a reminder that the digital “public square” (as referenced by Elon Musk) is privately owned by people like Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook and Larry Ellison, all of whom can be regularly seen attending state banquets at the White House.