When the case was commenced, it was still called Facebook, well before Zuck decided to blow his wad on a metaverse no one wanted or needed. You remember Facebook, the social media site that overcame then-dominant MySpace that has since become grandmothers fav hangout. If there is one certainty in social media, it’s that domination is fleeting and what was cool and hip one day is played out the next. Remember when AOL was so powerful that it bought Time Warner? There are now a total of 12 of us who still use our archaic AOL email addresses, waiting for nostalgia to kick in so we don’t look like the dinosaurs we are.

So it came as no surprise when Judge James Boasberg tossed the Federal Trade Commission action against now-Meta.

The case — Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms — stemmed from a novel legal argument that Meta, which was known as Facebook at the time, bought Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion to kill off its competitors. The government’s lawsuit, filed nearly five years ago, argued that Meta violated Section 2 of the 135-year-old Sherman Antitrust Act, a federal law that prohibits the monopolization of an industry through anticompetitive practices.

The odds were against the government, legal experts said, because it had the difficulty of proving a hypothetical: that Meta would not have been so dominant if it hadn’t acquired the rival apps.

At the time, Facebook was, without question, the dominant force in the narrow personal social media space. But then, without the acquisitions, would it have been any less dominant? And with the acquisitions, did it remain dominant, or have others, from Twitter to Tik Tok, managed to find their own niches while Facebook cum Meta saw its shining star fade?

Tim Wu, seizing upon Judge Boasberg’s unpopularity in the MAGA space based upon his orders to turn around the planes flying putative gangbangers to prison in El Salvador, slams the decision.

On Tuesday, the federal judge James Boasberg dismissed the U.S. government’s main antitrust case against Meta, ruling that the company, worth more than $1.5 trillion, does not possess a monopoly in personal social networking. He did so in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, not to mention common sense.

Ah yes, the legal doctrine of “common sense,” the go-to argument to fill the void when there are no substantive arguments to be found, the appeal to feelz when neither facts nor law can be fashioned into a cogent position. Surely Wu can muster something a bit stronger than the conclusory “strong evidence” and the vapid “common sense.”

But to dwell on the shortcomings of Judge Boasberg’s reasoning is to overlook something even worse: the message that his ruling sends to the country. The United States is in a precarious moment when it comes to the rule of law and democratic accountability. Unchecked wealth and corporate power have led many to doubt that our system is fair. Judge Boasberg’s ruling only fortifies the impression that the world’s wealthiest and most powerful corporations are above the law.

Of course, there’s the “message that his ruling sends to the country.” Some wags might expect that message to be that the law prevails, even when the “democratic accountability” feels otherwise, but not Wu. After all, Zuck possesses wealth and corporate power, though not nearly as much so as he did a decade ago, and there is a general sense among a certain cohort that the “world’s wealthiest and most powerful corporations are above the law.” Like the ones who flew on Epstein’s plane to Epstein’s Island to enjoy Epstein’s girls. But I digress.

And what, you may wonder, is that strong evidence that the maligned Judge Boasberg ignored?

But even to deny that Meta now holds a monopoly in personal social networking (sharing with friends and family) means ignoring a lot of direct evidence to the contrary. The government presented records of the company’s extraordinary and durable profits ($87.1 billion operating profit on $164.5 billion in revenue in 2024, for example), which is a textbook signal of monopoly power. The company has also subjected users to more and more ads, removed privacy protections and otherwise reduced the quality of its service without losing its user base, which is hard for a company facing competition to do.

Facebook was successful? Is that now a crime? Facebook was dominant in its niche, at least for a minute? Is that now a crime? Facebook monetizes its users who get to enjoy the site for bupkus with advertising? Is that now a crime?

Instead, Judge Boasberg held that the recent development and growth of an adjacent market for brief videos such as TikTok and YouTube shorts show that Meta does not — and somehow never did — possess monopoly power. It took an awful lot of strained legal thinking, in other words, to let the company off the hook.

That’s kind of the whole point of the Sherman Antitrust Act, to prevent a dominant enterprise from engaging in anti-competitive practices that make it impossible for other businesses to enter and thrive. Ironically, given the FTC’s novel legal theory that this could never happen because Facebook wouldn’t have been so dominant in the absence of Insta and WhatsApp, reality bit the theory in the butt. There is Tik Tok. There are YouTube shorts, If Facebook was such a monopoly, it really sucked at it since these alternatives not only managed to survive, but have sucked up much of the oxygen that Facebook once breathed.

What’s most curious about Wu’s attack on the decision is that he’s shooting blanks while complaining that Judge Boadberg ruled on vibes. Wu’s entire argument is that Facebook “feels” like a monopoly, so therefore it must be a monopoly. Someone’s working the vibes here, and it’s not Boasberg. If there is a message to be taken from Judge Boasberg’s tossing the government’s case, it’s that law still matters more when it comes to what tech company is a monopoly than whatever vibes Wu is feelings. That the ruling came from the dreaded Judge Boasberg doesn’t change that.