Meta’s Court Win Should Mark a Turning Point Toward More Competition and Less Government Control11/19/2025  Originally posted on Substack.
A federal court just handed Meta a decisive win—and Washington a badly needed wake-up call. By dismissing the FTC’s high-profile antitrust case, Judge James Boasberg didn’t simply reject one lawsuit. He exposed a deeper problem: too many in government and across the political spectrum believe competition can be engineered from above, rather than unleashed from below. This ruling should be a turning point. If policymakers are serious about promoting vibrant, open markets, they must stop trying to centrally plan outcomes and start clearing away the political choke points that smother competition long before any tech company does. The FTC’s failed theory—that Meta still holds an illegal monopoly despite facing a swarm of rivals—was built on a narrow, static view of a dynamic market. The agency argued Facebook and Instagram are fundamentally different from TikTok because they revolve around “friends and family.” That argument collapsed the second the evidence hit the courtroom. As the judge noted plainly, TikTok “holds center stage as Meta’s fiercest rival.” Consumers already made their choice. The government just didn’t like it. It’s a pattern: where Washington sees monopolies, the real world shows competitive pressure pushing firms to evolve. Meta didn’t maintain dominance by freezing the market—it had to reinvent its platforms to keep up with short-form video, algorithmic feeds, and shifting consumer expectations. That’s why Americans now spend only a fraction of their Facebook time scrolling through updates from their actual friends. The product changed because the competition demanded it. This is precisely why a healthy economy requires more market entry and less regulatory overreach, not the opposite. When the government defines markets however it chooses, rewrites history, and pursues lawsuits disconnected from consumer realities, the result is fewer new competitors—not more. Investors pull back. Startups get hemmed in. Acquisition pathways shrink. And the entire innovation ecosystem slows. Some on the right have fallen for this too, using “monopoly” as a catch-all insult rather than a legally meaningful term. But once you anchor antitrust to actual metrics—prices, quality, innovation—Meta doesn’t fit. Its services are no charge. Its ads can be ignored. Its products face constant substitution threats. Its acquisitions (approved originally by the FTC) enhanced consumer value. The court recognized that reality. And it’s a reminder that the consumer-welfare standard remains the only reliable compass in antitrust law. It measures harm the way economists do—not the way political movements do. The alternative—the neo-Brandeisian approach championed by Chair Lina Khan—tries to punish companies for being large, effective, or popular. That theory collapses when confronted with actual evidence of competition, as Brian Albrecht pointed out in his analysis. But the danger isn’t just bad lawsuits. It’s the chilling effect on innovation, investment, and the next wave of startups wondering whether success will simply put a target on their backs. If Washington truly wants to support competition, it should start by removing the barriers it created:
Meta’s win doesn’t mean the tech sector is perfect. It means the real monopoly threat still comes from government—utilities, water districts, licensing boards, tax-favored entities, and agencies whose incentives align with control, not competition. Breaking that grip would do more for market dynamism than any forced corporate breakup dreamed up in D.C. The path forward is straightforward: more competition driven by people, fewer decisions dictated by government. This ruling doesn’t end the antitrust debate—but it should reset it. And it’s long past time. Sources and further reading. WSJ reporting on Meta’s court victory: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/meta-defeats-ftcs-antitrust-case-alleging-social-media-monopoly-504b2323 My X thread: https://x.com/vanceginn/status/1990878777795359214?s=46&t=Zv07DS2UC3mLPAOmcJxg_Q Brian Albrecht’s X thread: https://x.com/briancalbrecht/status/1990866831553310762?s=46&t=Zv07DS2UC3mLPAOmcJxg_Q NetChoice statement: https://x.com/netchoice/status/1990867855668068534?s=46&t=Zv07DS2UC3mLPAOmcJxg_Q
0 Comments
 Originally posted on Substack.
College sports aren’t just in the news for thrilling games anymore. They’re in the headlines for billion-dollar NIL payouts, booster-funded collectives, and Washington’s latest attempt to regulate it all through the SCORE Act. The proposal claims to protect student-athletes by creating national standards for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals. In reality, it hands the NCAA new antitrust protections and entrenches the very cartel that suppressed players for decades. NIL: Freedom, but With Consequences When the NCAA finally allowed NIL deals in July 2021, athletes gained the freedom to profit from their own names, images, and likenesses. That was what many consider to be a long-overdue correction to decades of “amateurism,” which funneled billions to universities and coaches while denying athletes similar funding. But pair NIL with the transfer portal, and you get chaos. Players now bounce from school to school for the highest offer. The lifelong alma mater loyalty that once defined college football in Texas is evaporating. Fans (like me) used to watch Patrick Mahomes sling passes in Lubbock or Vince Young lead Texas to a national title, knowing those players were true fixtures. Today, rosters feel like revolving doors, more like NFL free agency than higher education. And the money isn’t spread evenly. A Washington Post investigation of more than $125 million in NIL contracts found that over 80 percent of payouts went to men playing football and basketball, leaving Olympic sports and women’s teams largely sidelined. What Athletes Already Received Before NIL Let’s not pretend athletes were uncompensated before NIL. In reality, top Division I athletes were already receiving benefits that far exceeded what most academic high-achievers ever see.
By comparison, the average student who received grants or scholarships at a four-year college for academics received about $15,750 per year. Only 11% of students receive any scholarship at all, and fewer than 2% of high school athletes earn an athletic scholarship, with the average FBS football scholarship of about $36,000 per year. Put it together, and a top football or basketball player at a place like UT, A&M, or Texas Tech—my own alma mater—could easily receive $30,000–$60,000+ annually in value. That’s often more than what top academic scholars get. After NIL: A Billion-Dollar Marketplace Once NIL was “legalized,” the floodgates opened. By 2023, athletes had signed nearly $1 billion worth of deals, with projections topping over $1.7 billion for 2024-25. At the University of Texas, the football team alone reported $20.8 million in NIL deals from 2021–2024, leading the nation. Texas A&M has become synonymous with massive booster-backed collectives. And at Texas Tech, Red Raider athletes are securing sponsorships through organized NIL programs. As a Red Raider, I’m proud of the legacy of athletes like Patrick Mahomes, Wes Welker, Zach Thomas, Ronald Ross, Andre Emmett, Mac McClung, and many more. But I can’t ignore how quickly the system that built those traditions is being rewritten into a marketplace where loyalty is negotiable and education feels secondary. The SCORE Act: Washington’s Wrong Fix The SCORE Act would impose a federal NIL regime: agents registering with the NCAA, schools mandated to provide medical care and counseling, and universities forced to field at least 16 varsity teams. Most troubling, it gives the NCAA a sweeping antitrust exemption and allows it to cap revenue-sharing at about $20.5 million per school. Texas Tech Regent Cody Campbell called out misleading ads claiming every Division I conference supports the bill. He’s right—many conferences oppose it, warning that it could harm women’s sports and smaller programs. His stance gained support from Texas Congressmen like Chip Roy and Wesley Hunt. But the bigger issue is this: why should Congress reward the NCAA’s monopoly model with even more power, when it has already distorted the market for a century? Education Is Still the Real Crisis The United States doesn’t just face a sports debate—we face an education crisis. National test scores are sinking, and college student debt has climbed past $1.7 trillion. Yet in Texas, the highest-paid public employees aren’t professors—they’re football coaches. When athletics becomes the core business of government-funded universities, classrooms and research inevitably get crowded out. This is classic economics. Subsidize demand through federal loans and grants, keep supply fixed, and costs rise. Layer on the billions funneled into athletics, and the price of higher education only climbs higher. Taxpayers and non-athlete students—who rarely see any benefit from NIL—are left paying the bill. The Better Path for Higher Education in Texas & Beyond Texas can set a different course. UT, A&M, and Texas Tech don’t need Washington’s bureaucracy to tell them how to run their programs. What they need is freedom and accountability.
Bottom Line NIL was a step toward fairness, but it’s become gasoline on the fire of a broken, subsidized system. The SCORE Act would only make it worse, cementing NCAA power and fueling more spending while academics fall further behind. We should lead with a better solution. Let athletes contract freely, but stop pretending multimillion-dollar sports programs belong inside taxpayer-funded universities. Put education back in the driver’s seat, privatize entertainment, and give families a real shot at affordable, quality schooling. Because in the long run, strong schools and strong markets—not government mandates or subsidies—are what truly let people prosper.  Originally published at The Center Square.
The proposed Charter-Cox merger isn't lighting up headlines — and that's exactly why it matters. In a Trump-era regulatory landscape that promises to let markets work, this deal is a quiet test of whether Washington will follow through. It's not about whether this merger is flawless. It's about whether policymakers will finally stop punishing scale for its own sake and return to enforcing the law, not playing politics. President Donald Trump's advisers have made the new direction clear. As Gail Slater put it in a recent interview, "If you're violating antitrust laws, we're going to take a hard look. If you're not… we're going to get the hell out of the way." That's the kind of plain talk—and plain policy — we need after four years of overreach under President Biden. Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission abandoned the longstanding consumer welfare standard, which had guided antitrust enforcement for decades. That standard asks a simple question: Does a merger harm consumers by raising prices, lowering quality, or stifling innovation? If not, it should be allowed. But Biden's FTC, led by Lina Khan, traded that economic clarity for an ideological crusade against "big." They filed lawsuits against companies not for hurting consumers, but simply for growing too large. The courts, to their credit, mostly weren't buying it. But the damage to investment and innovation was already done. That's the environment the Charter-Cox deal is trying to emerge from. And it deserves a fair hearing — not a reflexive regulatory attack. The companies aren't even direct competitors in most markets. According to their own FCC filing, 97 % of U.S. households would still have access to at least two fixed broadband providers after the merger. And that doesn't count new and expanding options like fixed wireless and satellite broadband, including services from Starlink and others. This merger isn't about locking consumers into fewer choices—it's about finding efficiencies in an industry where scale matters. Just look at what Charter is already doing. The company recently expanded gigabit broadband, mobile, TV, and voice services to more than 4,700 homes and businesses in Wexford County, Mich., as part of a growing network investment. As the nation's top rural internet provider, Charter is now delivering high-speed internet to nearly 2 million new locations nationwide. It's also worth remembering that many so-called "monopolies" in America aren't the result of market failure — they're created and protected by the government. Local franchise agreements, permitting delays, zoning rules, and licensing laws often serve as barriers to entry, artificially limiting competition. Then the same governments that build those walls point fingers at the companies forced to scale over them. That's not competition. That's regulatory capture. The Biden administration leaned into that model, using federal power to micromanage market outcomes. The result? Slower growth, weaker productivity, and stalled investment. Real GDP growth under Biden averaged just 1.8 %, far below potential. Meanwhile, investors pulled back, and innovation slowed under the weight of legal uncertainty and politicized enforcement. President Trump's first term showed a better path. By cutting red tape and lowering tax burdens, his administration helped deliver record income growth. In 2019, real median household income rose $4,400 — the largest annual increase ever recorded. That wasn't magic. It was the natural result of respecting voluntary exchange and allowing capital to flow to its highest use. That's why this merger matters, even if it's not flashy. It's a chance to show that America is back to doing business again — on merit, not politics. No merger should get a free pass. But no merger should be blocked just because someone in Washington doesn't like big companies. Antitrust enforcement should be based on clear rules, objective evidence, and actual consumer harm. Nothing more, nothing less. So let the Charter-Cox merger rise or fall on its facts. But let's stop pretending that every deal is a danger, or that the government knows better than the millions of Americans making choices every day in the marketplace. The real threat to competition isn't corporate scale. It's regulatory power. And the sooner we rein it in, the sooner we can get back to what works.  Overview The Trump administration, supported by a Republican-led Congress, has a pivotal chance to reverse the damage inflicted by the Biden administration's misguided antitrust policies. This report outlines the path to unleashing America’s tech potential through innovation, competition, and free-market principles. Key Points
Conclusion The report highlights a roadmap for the Trump administration and Congress to promote free-market policies, secure America’s technological leadership, and prioritize innovation and economic growth. Confirming regulatory leaders who support these principles is vital to achieving these goals. Welcome to This Week’s Economy podcast! In this episode, we explore the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision, President-elect Trump’s ambitious early agenda, the potential fallout from a looming TikTok ban, and new state tax competitiveness rankings. Join me as I unpack these pivotal developments, their economic implications, and the actions needed to secure prosperity for all Americans. Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.
|
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly