Week 8: Course Project: Final Paper
Instructions
You are to write a five-page paper on the published article you selected in Week 5 that references a legal, ethical, or political issue about the corporation that you selected in Week 1 that has been alleged or found responsible for the issue.
State either your support or opposition to the article’s position on the corporation and its issue and if you agree with the outcome.
Identify what changes or recommendations you would present to your personal business if this matter occurred to your corporate entity, using references to the materials covered in this course.
Refer to the Course Project Overview for assignment requirements and rubric. It is important to follow the rubric to ensure maximum points and to avoid missing a criteria for grading.
This assignment should be written in APA style and should include the following.
- Five pages in length (not including the title page and reference page)
- Double-spaced
- 12-point font
Â
Week 5 Course Project: Article Selection
Article Summary
The selected article is Judge sides with Meta in antitrust trial, will not spin off WhatsApp and Instagram by John Ruwitch (2025) published by NPR. It reports on the result of the antitrust case of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Meta Platforms, Inc.
The FTC filed a lawsuit against Meta in 2020. The agency said that Meta’s acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 was to eliminate potential rivals. The FTC referred to this as a “buy or bury” approach (Ruwitch, 2025). It had requested the court to compel the sale of both apps by Meta. In November 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled in favor of Meta. He found that the FTC did not establish that Meta currently has a monopoly. He noted that the social media landscape has shifted since the case was filed. Facebook and Instagram are now direct competitors with YouTube and TikTok. According to Meta, both acquisitions were accepted by the regulators at that time. The FTC did not agree with the decision and questioned the fairness of the judge. According to a former FTC chairman, antitrust litigation might not be a suitable way to control technology firms that are moving fast (Ruwitch, 2025).
Issues to Cover
Three issues will be addressed in this project. The first is legal. The case is a test of how courts apply Section 2 of the Sherman Act to monopoly claims. It also raises questions under Section 7 of the Clayton Act on mergers that reduce competition. One important aspect is the definition of the relevant market by the Court. The second issue is ethical. When a company purchases a competitor to eliminate competition, it raises issues surrounding fair dealing and obligations to consumers. The third is a political one. The article describes Meta’s efforts to improve its relationship with the Trump administration. This included a $25M settlement and a $1M first donation (Ruwitch, 2025).
Relevance to Course Materials
These issues relate to the course materials in the legal, ethical and political environment of business. The case demonstrates how courts use antitrust laws to address rapidly evolving markets and how demanding the government’s burden of proving can be. It is also an expression of the course theme of balancing profit-making with social responsibility and an illustration of the politicization of the corporate strategy, as well as of the role of public pressure.
Background on Meta Platforms, Inc.
Instagram and WhatsApp are owned by Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly Facebook, and are headed by chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg. This case is among several government anti-trust proceedings against major tech companies such as Google, Amazon and Apple (Ruwitch, 2025).
Â
References
Ruwitch, J. (2025, November 18). Judge sides with Meta in antitrust trial, will not spin off WhatsApp and Instagram. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/18/nx-s1-5495626/meta-ftc-instagram-whatsapp-antitrust-ruling
Â
Â
Â
Rubric
LMA.KCL.MGMT520.WK8.FinalPaper.JUL26
|
LMA.KCL.MGMT520.WK8.FinalPaper.JUL26 |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent Paper used proper published article referencing a legal, |
60 to >48.0 ptsExcellentThe paper concisely 48 to >42.0 ptsCompetentThe paper presented is 42 to >36.0 ptsLimitedThe paper presented is 36 to >1.0 ptsPoorThe paper is missing several 1 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe final paper does not |
60 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Analyze information to solve business problems through threshold: 3.0 pts |
4 ptsExcellent: The final paper demonstrates excellent 3 ptsCompetent: The final paper demonstrates competent 2 ptsLimited: The final paper demonstrates limited 1 ptsPoor: The final paper demonstrates poor analysis 0 ptsUnacceptable: The final paper does not meet this |
4 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of enterprise-wide threshold: 3.0 pts |
4 ptsExcellent: The final paper demonstrates excellent 3 ptsCompetent: The final paper demonstrates competent 2 ptsLimited: The final paper demonstrates limited 1 ptsPoor: The final paper demonstrates poor knowledge 0 ptsUnacceptable: Does not demonstrate this |
4 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport or State either your support or opposition to the article’s |
20 to >18.0 ptsExcellentThe paper presents a 18 to >12.0 ptsCompetentThe paper presents a 12 to >6.0 ptsLimitedThe paper presents a 6 to >1.0 ptsPoorThe paper presents a poor 1 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe final paper does not |
20 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Identify what changes or recommendations you would present |
20 to >18.0 ptsExcellentThe final identifies 18 to >12.0 ptsCompetentThe final paper shows 12 to >6.0 ptsLimitedThe final paper shows 6 to >1.0 ptsPoorThe final paper poorly depicts 1 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe final paper does not |
20 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Apply analytical tools and applications to develop threshold: 3.0 pts |
4 ptsExcellent: The final paper applies excellent 3 ptsCompetent: The final paper applies competent 2 ptsLimited: The final paper applies limited 1 ptsPoor: The final paper applies poor analytical 0 ptsUnacceptable: The final paper does not meet this |
4 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAI Paper describes a counterargument generated by AI and |
20 to >18.0 ptsExcellentThe final paper shows 18 to >12.0 ptsCompetentThe final paper shows 12 to >6.0 ptsLimitedThe final paper shows a 6 to >1.0 ptsPoorThe final paper shows a poor 1 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe final paper does not |
20 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Format, Paper adheres to APA style formatting: double spaced References: Paper includes reliable sources to support. Paper has no spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors; and meets |
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThe final paper 8 to >6.0 ptsCompetentThe final paper is missing 6 to >4.0 ptsLimitedThe final paper is missing 2 4 to >1.0 ptsPoorThe final paper is missing 1 to >0 ptsUnacceptableThe final paper does not |
10 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Demonstrate professional oral and written communication threshold: 3.0 pts |
4 ptsExcellent: The final paper demonstrates excellent 3 ptsCompetent: The final paper demonstrates above 2 ptsLimited: The final paper demonstrates limited 1 ptsPoor: The final paper demonstrates minimal 0 ptsUnacceptable: Does not demonstrate this |
4 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Collaborate effectively with diverse populations in threshold: 3.0 pts |
4 ptsExcellent: The final paper considers diverse 3 ptsCompetent: The final paper considers some diverse 2 ptsLimited: The final paper considers limited diverse 1 ptsPoor: The final paper considers minimal diverse 0 ptsUnacceptable: The final paper does not meet this |
4 pts |
Total Points: 150