From the opinion, internal citations omitted: > The FTC has failed to plead enough facts to plausibly establish a necessary element of all of its Section 2 cla

From the opinion, internal citations omitted: > The FTC has failed to plead enough facts to plausibly establish a necessary element of all of its Section 2 claims — namely, that Facebook has monopoly power in the market for Personal Social Networking (PSN) Services. The Complaint contains nothing on that score save the naked allegation that the company has had and still has a “dominant share of th[at] market (in excess of 60%).” Such an unsupported assertion might (barely) suffice in a Section 2 case involving a more traditional goods market, in which the Court could reasonably infer that market share was measured by revenue, units sold, or some other typical metric. But this case involves no ordinary or intuitive market. Rather, PSN services are free to use, and the exact metes and bounds of what even constitutes a PSN service — i.e., which features of a company’s mobile app or website are included in that definition and which are excluded — are hardly crystal clear. In this unusual context, the FTC’s inability to offer any indication of the metric(s) or method(s) it used to calculate Facebook’s market share renders its vague “60%-plus” assertion too speculative and conclusory to go forward. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.224921/gov.uscourts.dcd.224921.73.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.224... The court also threw out the similar argument from 46 States (and in a way that the States are unlikely to recover from): > First, the States’ Section 2 and Section 7 attacks on Facebook’s acquisitions are barred by the doctrine of laches, which precludes relief for those who sleep on their rights. Although Defendant purchased Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, Plaintiffs’ suit — which seeks, in the main, to have Facebook divest one or both companies — was not filed until December 2020. The Court is aware of no case, and Plaintiffs provide none, where such a long delay in seeking such a consequential remedy has been countenanced in a case brought by a plaintiff other than the federal government, against which laches does not apply and to which the federal antitrust laws grant unique authority as sovereign law enforcer. If laches is to mean anything, it must apply on these facts, even in a suit brought by states. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.224923/gov.uscourts.dcd.224923.137.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.224... Relevant to both suits, the Court separately found that the argument that Facebook violated antitrust law by revoking API access for other apps that duplicated Facebook features lacked merit (the policy is not a violation of antitrust law) and came too late (the implementation when they revoked access was years ago and there is no ongoing misconduct).