SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
public knowledge
'Colossally Wrong Decision' as Facebook Parent Company Wins Instagram-WhatsApp Antitrust Case
"This court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side."
Nov 19, 2025
Anti-monopoly advocates are warning that a federal judge's ruling in favor of Facebook parent company Meta in a major antitrust case will have negative repercussions for US consumers by allowing Facebook to continue wielding monopoly power in the social media marketplace.
Judge James Boasberg in the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that the company’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp did not violate US antitrust policy.
Boasberg found that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had not proven Meta holds monopoly power in the personal social networking market, "largely because he folded TikTok and YouTube into the same market and concluded that their popularity reduces Meta’s share below illegal levels," said the American Economic Liberties Project (ALEP).
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, argued that Boasberg's ruling demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about the economics of the social media market.
"The court's opinion reflects a view of the market that is at odds with how digital-platform power operates today," he said. "Meta systematically acquired emerging competitors precisely because direct, head-to-head competition threatened its dominance. Meta’s consolidation strategy deprived consumers of innovative services and prevented the development of a truly competitive social-networking ecosystem."
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of ALEP, described the ruling as a "colossally wrong decision" that "turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it."
"These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family," she said. "By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side."
Hegde added that it should now fall upon US Congress to "step in and break up Big Tech, prohibit addictive surveillance algorithms, and create the conditions for building a better future."
Open Markets Institute policy counsel Tara Pincock said Boasberg's ruling was "profoundly misguided," and accused the judge of blocking the FTC from reversing a mistake it made last decade when it signed off on Meta's purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp.
"Judge Boasberg erred in concluding that Facebook competes with TikTok and YouTube," said Pincock, a former state assistant attorney general in Utah. "I was part of the bipartisan coalition of states that brought this case alongside the FTC in December 2020, and the court’s framing misrepresents what is at stake. This case has never been about generic 'time and attention.' It is about how people connect, communicate, and build communities—and about how a powerful company abused its dominance to protect itself from competition."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge's Ruling on Google Search Monopoly Decried as 'Slap on the Wrist' for Tech Giant
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," said one critic.
Sep 03, 2025
A federal judge's Tuesday ruling on tech giant Google has drawn criticism from anti-monopoly advocates who say that it let the company walk away without having to give up its economic stranglehold over online searches and advertising.
As reported by The New York Times, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had to share some of its data with competing search platforms, while also placing restrictions on the company's ability to pay to ensure its search engine receives preferential treatment on web browsers and phones.
However, these remedies fell far short of measures requested by the US Department of Justice, which had asked that Google be forced to share more of its data with competitors and to sell off its Chrome web browser.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, offered a scathing assessment of Mehta's ruling, and she urged the government to appeal and push for harsher penalties against Google.
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," she said. "Similarly, you don't find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed."
She went on to describe Mehta's decision as "bizarre" given that he had "found Google liable for maintaining one of the most consequential and damaging monopolies of the internet era."
Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, accused Mehta of letting Google get away with a "slap on the wrist" given the scale of the damage it has caused.
"Google for years has wielded its vast power over all layers of the digital economy to crush competitors, halt innovation, and rob Americans of their right to read, watch, and buy what they want without being manipulated by one of the most powerful corporations in human history," he said. "Judge Mehta's order that Google share search data with competitors and cease entering into exclusive contracts does nothing to right those wrongs."
Like Hegde, Lynn also urged the government to appeal the ruling.
Elise Phillips, policy counsel at the freedom of expression advocacy group Public Knowledge, took aim at Mehta for letting Google maintain control of both Chrome and the Android mobile operating system, even though he concluded that Google had abused its market power to stifle competition.
Phillips also suggested that elected officials needed to pick up the slack when it comes to holding giant corporations accountable for their actions.
"Judge Mehta's remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust," she said. "Google's anticompetitive behavior, and behavior like it, can and must be confronted by legislation that targets conflicts of interest, self-preferencing, and discrimination online. The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice."
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of human rights organization Amnesty International, also weighed in to express disappointment with Mehta's decision.
"This ruling was a missed chance to rein in Google's power," said Callamard. "Google's toxic business model is built on pervasive surveillance. By tracking people across the web and monetizing their personal data through targeted advertising, the company has severely undermined our right to privacy."
Google was first sued for antitrust violations by the DOJ in 2020 under the first Trump administration, and then again in 2023 under the Biden administration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Charter-Cox $34.5 Billion Megamerger the 'Last Thing' Consumers Need: Watchdog
"However troubling as this merger might be for competition, at least as troubling is what the companies might agree to in order to persuade the Trump administration and the current FCC to approve the deal."
May 16, 2025
Charter Communications and Cox Communications on Friday announced a $34.5 billion merger that—if approved by the Trump administration—would create the largest cable television and broadband provider by subscribers in the United States, sparking a flurry of monopoly concerns.
Charter, which uses the branding Spectrum, is already the second-largest publicly traded cable company, but coupling with the privately held Cox would push it ahead of the current industry leader, Comcast. According to a statement from the cable giants, the combined company would be known as Cox Communications, with Spectrum as the consumer-facing brand.
"The last thing American consumers need is yet another megamerger, as giant internet service providers and cable companies claim they need to get yet-larger to keep up with their industry peers," said John Bergmayer, legal director at the watchdog Public Knowledge, in a Friday statement.
"More consolidation won't fix the cable industry, and introducing new sets of competitive problems is no way to address existing ones," he continued. "As always with cable mergers, the question is as much a loss of opportunities for content creators and programmers to reach an audience, as the loss of choices to subscribers."
As NBC News—whose parent company is Comcast—reported:
On a Friday call with investors, Charter CEO Chris Winfrey called the deal "good for America" and said it will "return jobs from overseas and create new, good-paying customer service and sales careers."
The commentary comes as corporate deal activity has been slower than expected since President Donald Trump took office.
After Trump won the election, Wall Street rallied as many expected the regulatory environment to loosen and the floodgates to open for dealmakers and corporate leaders. But in the months following the election, companies have been contending with other factors rather than dealmaking, such as the Federal Communications Commission's investigation into diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, and the outcome of Trump's tariffs.
The Charter-Cox deal could face scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr. Journalist George Chidi said on social media that "in a sane world, the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the FCC would block the merger of Cox Communications and Charter."
"Do I need to even complete this thought?" Chidi asked. "For the next three years and six months—assuming we are still having actual elections, it's corporate Christmas."
Public Knowledge's Bergmayer said that "however troubling as this merger might be for competition, at least as troubling is what the companies might agree to in order to persuade the Trump administration and the current FCC to approve the deal."
Trump has a long record of forcefully going after his critics, and experts—including Daniel Stockemer, a professor at Canada's University of Ottawa, in a commentary published earlier this month in the journal Politics & Policy—have warned that with his second term, the president is pushing the United States toward autocracy.
"Will the companies drop cable channels critical of this administration, or agree to censor online content or sites that the administration disapproves of—something the loss of Title II and net neutrality makes all the more likely?" Bergmayer wondered. "Given FCC Chairman Carr's proven willingness to use the agency's power to 'further the president's agenda,' and the willingness of companies to agree to get deals done, what could once be dismissed as paranoid speculation becomes frighteningly plausible."
"From walking back—even reversing—company policies designed to promote diversity and inclusion, to pulling back on news coverage critical of the administration, far too many companies have already put the short-term interest of currying favor with the White House over the public interest, and over the interests of their employees and the communities they serve," he added. "Hopefully that does not happen here."
Emarketer analyst Ross Benes told Reuters that "antitrust concerns are legitimate. But in this era of deregulation, the merger would probably pass as long as they don't upset the president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular