When Big Tech Goes to Court: What Google, Meta’s global legal battles mean

Towards the end of 2024, a US federal appeals court upheld legislation that could ban TikTok, the popular social media platform, in the country. The court rejected petitions by ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, which had sought relief from the ruling. The core of TikTok’s legal trouble in the United States stems from national security concerns. The concerns are threefold: that the Chinese government could access data on American citizens, that the app’s algorithm could be used to amplify propaganda, and that broader national security risks exist around surveillance and potential disruption of communication systems. The US government had demanded that TikTok divest its US operations to a domestic tech firm, forcing the platform to become more like the homegrown giants it now rivals.

The court’s decision gave TikTok until 19 January 2025 to comply before the platform would be banned. On that day, TikTok effectively went dark in the US—until the new administration granted a brief extension for negotiations on the platform’s ownership restructuring. The extension has been granted a second time for an additional 75 days.

While the world was still digesting the implications of the TikTok saga, Meta announced a major shift in its content moderation strategy. In January, the company revealed that it would review its global fact-checking programme and transition from centralised moderation to a decentralised system, resembling Twitter’s (now X’s) community moderation model.

The sudden announcement caught many fact-checkers unprepared and underscored the complex intersection of platform regulation, data governance, and ethics, particularly how these factors affect collaboration between fact-checkers, policymakers, technologists, and civil society.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

At a time when generative AI is exacerbating disinformation, bias, polarisation, and other harmful content, content governance and regulation become even more critical to ensuring transparency, accountability, and a healthier information ecosystem.

These twin developments—Meta’s shift in content policy and TikTok’s legal standoff—set the stage for broader reckonings. Now, two of the world’s most powerful tech companies—Google and Meta—find themselves at the centre of landmark legal battles in the United States.

These are not just domestic regulatory squabbles. They are global flashpoints in the contest over how digital platforms should be governed. At stake is a larger question: Who sets the rules for our digital future—corporations, governments, or a mosaic of international norms?

The Google Cases: Search and Ads in the Crosshairs

Google is currently facing two major antitrust lawsuits:

Search Monopoly: The first lawsuit targets Google’s dominance in search. It alleges that the company maintained its monopoly through exclusive deals, such as the $20 billion it paid Apple in 2022 to remain the default search engine on Safari. (In 2021, that figure was $15 billion.)
Ad Tech Empire: The second lawsuit focuses on Google’s advertising business, where the Department of Justice argues that the company has unfairly tied services together to suppress competition and maintain market dominance.

Both cases are strong and raise serious questions about whether Google can weather this season of scrutiny.

Meta’s Mounting Legal Pressure

Meta, Facebook’s parent company, is also under intense legal fire. It is being sued for monopolistic practices, particularly its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp—moves that, according to the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), crushed competition.

“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals,” said FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson.

The FTC is seeking to force Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, claiming the acquisitions were anti-competitive. In addition to these antitrust issues, Meta has paid over $800 million in settlements related to privacy violations, including unauthorised tracking via the “Like” button.

Further, in 2023, multiple US states sued Meta over the harmful effects of its platforms on teens, alleging that its addictive design and algorithmic structures contributed to mental health issues among young users.

A Symbolic Turning Point

Though the legal proceedings are complex, their symbolic importance is clear. They signal that the US is now willing to regulate Big Tech—and that these platforms are no longer above the law. For years, the US lagged behind the EU in terms of digital regulation. Now, that tide appears to be turning.

Historically, the US adopted a “wait and see” approach, largely allowing platforms to self-regulate. In contrast, the EU took a proactive stance, with landmark policies like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act—each aimed at improving data privacy, competition, and user safety in the EU region.

So when Meta laid off thousands of employees in early 2025, it could not do so in the EU without facing legal pushback, due to regional labour protections.

These recent waves of lawsuits in US courts suggest a pivot. They mark a new era of digital sovereignty, where states are beginning to reassert control over transnational platforms that have long operated with impunity.

A Global South Lens

To understand the broader significance of the US cases, we must consider how platform regulation is unfolding in the Global South—where governments are also grappling with platform power but with fewer tools, institutions, and legal precedents.

Brazil: Law as a Shield for Democracy

In August 2024, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered dozens of Twitter (X) accounts to be suspended for spreading disinformation. Elon Musk, Twitter’s owner, refused, citing free speech concerns. The Brazilian judiciary, especially the Supreme Electoral Court, has consistently used its constitutional authority to compel platforms to take down harmful content, often in defence of electoral integrity.

This wasn’t Brazil’s first clash with Big Tech. In 2022, after Telegram failed to comply with court orders related to fake news investigations, the court ordered the app to suspend operations. It even instructed Google and Apple to remove Telegram from their platforms.

Nigeria: Executive Overreach in Disguise

In 2021, Nigeria, home to one of Africa’s largest social media markets, banned Twitter after it deleted a tweet by then-President Buhari. The ban, imposed without legislative backing or court orders, was widely viewed as retaliation for Twitter’s role in the #EndSARS protests. Here, regulation served as an extension of executive power, bypassing democratic accountability.

On Friday, 25th April, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), Nigeria’s chief consumer protection and competition agency, secured a $220 million judgment against Meta Platforms Inc. (parent company of Facebook and WhatsApp) for violations related to data breaches and consumer rights abuses.

Platforms as Geopolitical Players

These cases remind us that technology companies are no longer just private businesses. They are geopolitical actors. Their choices reverberate globally.

In response to antitrust lawsuits, Google has argued that dismantling its operations would hurt innovation, drive up costs, and weaken US competitiveness in AI. In short: Let us stay big—so America can win.

This is techno-nationalism: platform regulation framed as a matter of national security, not public interest. It’s a powerful argument—and one that governments around the world must navigate with caution.

Implications for Global Tech Governance

From Washington to Brussels, Brasília to Abuja, these legal battles reveal the fractured and politicised state of global platform governance. Each region is deploying different tools to regulate the same actors:

US courts focus on antitrust and due process.
Brazilian courts lean on constitutional authority to defend democratic institutions.
The EU centres on data privacy and consumer protection.
Nigeria uses executive fiat and consumer protection rules to control digital platforms

What results is a fragmented, uneven regulatory terrain where platforms must navigate wildly different laws, politics, and institutional logics.

A Caution and an Opportunity

The global governance challenge is twofold. First, countries must avoid copying foreign models without adapting them to local realities. Second, they must treat regulation not just as legal mechanics, but as an exercise in democratic values, accountability, and sovereignty.

These court cases open a window, not just to legal reform, but to a global reckoning on the role of platforms in shaping our economies, societies, and politics. Content moderation and data localisation are only pieces of the puzzle. The bigger picture is about power, legitimacy, and the architecture of the digital public sphere.

As researchers, policymakers, and civic actors, we must watch closely—not just the rulings, but the narratives they produce and the precedents they set.

The battle for digital platform accountability is here. And it’s global.

Akintunde Babatunde is the Executive Director at the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID), a leading pan-African media development think tank. His work sits at the intersection of platform governance, information integrity, and digital rights in the Global South.