The title should probably read "Meta Did Not Violate Antitrust Law when buying Instragram and Whatsapp, Judge Rules (nytimes.com)" here.
The meat and potatoes aren't in the official page title, but Meta has a lot of fingers in a lot of pies, and Meta not violating antitrust in general is very different from them not violating antitrust for deals that were investigated by the FTC back in 2012 and 2014 and not found in violation of antitrust then.
Antitrust's dentures has been removed, for a long time. At least in the US.
The title should probably read "Meta Did Not Violate Antitrust Law when buying Instragram and Whatsapp, Judge Rules (nytimes.com)" here.
The meat and potatoes aren't in the official page title, but Meta has a lot of fingers in a lot of pies, and Meta not violating antitrust in general is very different from them not violating antitrust for deals that were investigated by the FTC back in 2012 and 2014 and not found in violation of antitrust then.
Related:
Meta's Victory Opens the Way for Silicon Valley to Go Deal Shopping
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/technology/meta-ruling-si...