Last November, in a taped interview with the HBO news show Axios, President Donald Trump made a vague passing comment about the Department of Justice potentially looking into antitrust violations against the social media giant, Facebook, a concept which has gained some traction among government watchdogs. While Facebook is arguably a big player in the social media realm, does that necessarily equate to branding it an illegal monopolist? The short answer is no as Facebook would need to be big and bad to flirt with an antitrust violation. As will be discussed, the social media market remains open to competitors and there is no evidence to suggest that Facebook has used predatory tactics to close off the relevant market from would-be competitors. And while the company does indeed hold relevant market share, as more competitors enter the crowded social media space, it finds itself constantly working to maintain what share it already has, as opposed to dominating the market through an illegal monopoly.

From an antitrust perspective, to be considered an illegal monopoly, an entity must first have sufficient power in the relevant market and be the leading firm therein. In a classic monopoly situation, one would look at whether a single entity was the sole provider for a particular good or service, and if it had exclusive rights over that valuable good or service as well as the ability to control the price. In such a situation, the monopolist would be violating the antitrust laws only if it then engaged in predatory conduct by abusing its monopoly power, like for example, charging uncompetitive prices or excluding competitors from the market by creating artificial barriers to entry. In other words, big is not bad unless big acts badly.