A federal magistrate judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms of illegally monopolizing shopping on Instagram, siding with the tech giant over a now-defunct London startup that claimed its business idea was stolen years before Instagram Shopping ever launched. U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi found that the startup, Ollywan Limited, waited too long to sue and failed to plausibly show that Meta's conduct harmed competition.
The ruling, issued Friday, is not a full end to the case. As Reuters reports, Judge DeMarchi, who is based in San Jose, California, granted Meta's motion to dismiss but will allow Ollywan to file an amended complaint with limitations. Court records reviewed by Justia Dockets show the judge set a Case Management Statement deadline for October 20 and scheduled an Initial Case Management Conference for October 27, giving Ollywan a narrow window to try again.
What Ollywan Says Meta Did
Ollywan, based in London, had launched Winstag, described in the complaint as a photo-sharing app with product tagging and affiliate shopping features. The startup alleged that Meta violated U.S. antitrust law by integrating Instagram with Instagram Shopping, effectively tying its social network dominance to shopping tools in a way that crushed early rivals. According to The Fashion Law, Ollywan's suit put the value of the social commerce market Meta allegedly monopolized at more than $2 billion annually.
Ollywan also claimed its chief executive shared a business plan for Winstag with Meta executives back in 2015 under assurances of confidentiality. Per PYMNTS, a Meta executive reportedly expressed interest in working together shortly before the company announced its Instagram Shopping features. The lawsuit further alleged that Meta's Facebook Developer Console forced account-linking prompts to display the misspelling W1nstag instead of Winstag, a move Ollywan said created user trust barriers that suppressed downloads even as Meta accepted paid ad campaigns for the app. The suit also challenged Meta's efforts to prevent Ollywan from using the Winstag name.
Why the Judge Said the Clock Ran Out
Meta launched Instagram Shopping in 2016, and Ollywan did not file suit until years later, after ceasing operations two years before bringing the action. Under Section 4B of the Clayton Act, monopolization claims are governed by a strict four-year statute of limitations that begins running when a plaintiff suffers competitive injury. Meta argued the allegations fell well outside that window under federal law.
Judge DeMarchi agreed, finding that Ollywan did not explain how filing this action two years after ceasing operations could be considered a prompt filing. Federal courts generally reject the continuing-violation exception in antitrust cases unless a plaintiff points to a distinct, new overt act within the four-year window causing fresh competitive harm, rather than lingering damage from an older act, according to research from A&O Shearman. The judge also found that Ollywan's antitrust claims failed to plausibly show harm to competition, and said the antitrust laws do not prohibit Meta from enforcing its own trademark rights. Ollywan additionally asserted claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, which carries its own four-year limitations period but restricts private plaintiffs to equitable remedies like restitution and injunctions rather than monetary damages, per Bona Law.
Meta and Ollywan Respond
Meta said Ollywan seeks to misuse the antitrust laws to blame the company for the failure of its fledgling app and for succeeding where Ollywan failed. The company denied any wrongdoing. Meta is represented by attorneys David Gringer and Sonal Mehta of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, while Ollywan is represented by Sami Rashid and Sam Stake of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
The case, Ollywan Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc., number 5:25-cv-08215, is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Instagram Shopping currently lets users buy products tagged directly in posts.
Part of a Bigger Pattern for Meta
The dismissal adds to a string of favorable outcomes for Meta in antitrust fights. In November, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled in Meta's favor in the Federal Trade Commission's landmark antitrust suit, which had sought to force Meta to restructure or sell Instagram and WhatsApp; the court found the FTC failed to prove Meta maintained a monopoly in personal social networking given competition from platforms like TikTok and YouTube, according to reporting from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Meta denied the allegations in that case as well.
That fight isn't over either. In June, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford and a bipartisan coalition of 29 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals supporting the FTC's appeal, according to the Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Meta continues to face other antitrust lawsuits beyond the Ollywan and FTC cases.
Meanwhile, Instagram Shopping itself looks different than it did when Ollywan says it was first harmed. Between 2023 and 2025, Meta removed the navigation bar's dedicated Shop tab and fully decommissioned native in-app checkout, converting the feature into more of an external link traffic driver than a closed marketplace, per trend data from CreatorFlow. For now, Ollywan's best chance to keep its case alive rests on whether it can identify a fresh, independent act of alleged anticompetitive conduct before the October deadlines Judge DeMarchi has set.
