• by Wendy Davis , August 28, 2026

Siding with Meta Platforms, the Chamber of Commerce is urging an appellate court to reject the Federal Trade Commission's attempt to revive charges that the company violated antitrust law by monopolizing a market for "personal social networking services."

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. dismissed the FTC's lawsuit against Meta last year after trial, ruling that the company isn't a monopoly because it currently competes with YouTube and TikTok.

His ruling came in a battle dating to December 2020, when the FTC claimed that Meta's acquisition of Instagram (purchased for $1 billion in 2012) and WhatsApp (bought for $19 billion in 2014) enabled the company to maintain a monopoly. The FTC sought an injunction that would have required Meta to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp.

Boasberg said in a written decision that the social media landscape "changed markedly" in the five years since the FTC sued -- particularly due to TikTok's emergence as a competitor. He noted that his prior written rulings in the case -- issued in 2021, 2022 and 2024 -- "did not even mention the word" TikTok, but that today "that app holds center stage as Meta’s fiercest rival."

The FTC recently asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Boasberg's ruling. Among other arguments, the commission contends that the Sherman Antitrust Act only required the agency to prove Meta monopolized a market in 2020, when the case was filed -- as opposed to in 2025, when Boasberg issued his decision.

Meta countered last week that even if the FTC had proven Meta was a monopoly in 2020, the agency wouldn't be entitled to obtain a remedy now unless the company was still a monopoly.

The Chamber of Commerce agrees.

"The Commission must prove a present or impending violation before obtaining a permanent injunction," the business group writes in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Thursday with the D.C. Circuit. "It cannot obtain an injunction against a violation that occurred in the past."

The organization adds that the FTC's theory means acquisitions might never "truly be final."

"A company could integrate an acquisition for a decade, watch the market change around it, and still be broken up over competitive conditions that no longer exist," the Chamber of Commerce writes. "An injunction’s job is to stop a violation. Where there is none, a breakup stops nothing; it only destroys years of work."

The appellate court hasn't yet said when it will hear oral arguments.