• by Wendy Davis , August 7, 2025

Meta Platforms is urging a federal judge to reject the Federal Trade Commission's claim that the company violates antitrust law by monopolizing the "personal social networking services" market, arguing in papers filed Wednesday that such a market does not exist.

"The evidence decisively demonstrated that Meta -- once an online 'Facebook' for connecting students -- has evolved into a diverse global provider of entertaining and informative content that competes with increasingly similar social apps including TikTok, YouTube, iMessage, and others," the tech platform argues in a post-trial brief submitted to U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C.

"Today, only a fraction of time spent on Meta’s services -- 7% on Instagram, 17% on Facebook – involves consuming content from online 'friends,'” Meta says, adding that most time on its services is spent watching videos, including short-form clips recommended by artificial intelligence algorithms the company developed to compete with TikTok.

The company's new filing comes in an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission December 2020, when the agency alleged that Meta's acquisition of Instagram (purchased for $1 billion in 2012) and (bought for $19 billion in 2014) enabled the company to maintain a monopoly.

The agency claimed both purchases were part of an illegal “buy-or-bury scheme” that allowed the platform to preserve its dominance in the “personal social networking market.”

The FTC reviewed both acquisitions when they were announced and allowed them to close. If the agency prevails with its antitrust charge, it could seek an order requiring Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp.

Earlier this year, the case went to trial. Meta reportedly argued at trial that it doesn't have a monpoly because it competes with apps including TikTok and YouTube.

The FTC argued in papers submitted to Boasberg last month that Facebook and Instagram serve different "core purposes" than TikTok or YouTube, contending that Facebook and Instagram focus on connecting users with friends and family, but TikTok and YouTube are focused on entertainment.

The agency also argued that Meta's alleged monopoly allowed it to degrade users' experience by increasing the ad load on its services.

Meta counters in its post-trial brief that it has never charged U.S. users for Facebook or Instagram, and that the FTC failed to prove that more ads resulted in a worse experience for users.

"The FTC has no evidence that an increased number of ads by itself equates to degraded product quality," Meta argues.

"Quickly scrolling past an ad -- it takes a second -- is not equivalent to paying a price," the company argues, adding: "The FTC does not and cannot argue that the experience of seeing ads on Meta’s apps is worse today than it was before Meta supposedly attained a monopoly -- when there were intrusive 'punch the monkey' ads -- much less that the overall experience is below any relevant competitive level."

Meta also says ads on its services benefit users "who purchase advertised products or click to learn more."

"This positive utility is why Meta makes money on advertising -- many users find ads valuable and respond to them," the company writes. "If they didn’t, advertisers would stop spending money to show ads on Meta’s apps."