Elon Musk’s Social Media Network ‘X’ hits $44B valuation.

X, the rebranded social media platform originally known as Twitter, has recently regained a valuation of $44 billion, matching the amount billionaire Elon Musk paid when he acquired the company in 2022. This valuation was determined through new share grants given to employees, signaling a recovery in investor trust and market perception following a period of uncertainty after the acquisition.

The return to this valuation comes after a tumultuous period for X under Musk’s leadership. Initially, the platform faced challenges such as a mass exodus of advertisers, significant layoffs, and a drastic overhaul of its verification and content moderation policies. Despite these issues, Musk’s vision for X as an “everything app” seems to be gaining traction among users and investors alike, possibly due to strategic pivots and feature enhancements.

Part of the optimism around X’s valuation might stem from Musk’s aggressive cost-cutting measures and his plans to diversify revenue streams beyond traditional advertising. These efforts include the introduction of X Premium, a subscription model similar to Twitter Blue, and exploring new revenue avenues like data licensing and commerce directly on the platform. These changes aim to reduce X’s dependency on advertising dollars while providing more stable financial footing.

The $44 billion valuation also reflects broader market dynamics, where tech companies are increasingly valued not just on current earnings but on future growth potential in sectors like social commerce, payment processing, and AI-driven content. Musk’s past successes with companies like Tesla and SpaceX contribute to investor confidence that X could replicate such groundbreaking advancements in the social media industry, although the path forward remains filled with both opportunities and challenges.

But Does This ‘Everything App’ Violate Monopoly Law?

It could. Time will tell.

In the late 1990s, Microsoft faced a landmark antitrust lawsuit in the United States, commonly referred to as United States v. Microsoft Corp., which centered on its alleged monopolistic practices in the web browser market.

The U.S. Department of Justice, along with several states, accused Microsoft of abusing its dominant position in the operating system market with Windows to stifle competition, particularly against Netscape Navigator, a popular web browser at the time.

The core issue was Microsoft’s bundling of its own browser, Internet Explorer, with Windows, which prosecutors argued gave it an unfair advantage and effectively pushed Netscape out of the market.

This practice, they claimed, violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by maintaining an illegal monopoly and limiting consumer choice in the rapidly growing internet ecosystem.

The trial, which began in 1998, revealed a trove of internal Microsoft documents and emails, showcasing aggressive tactics to undermine competitors. In 2000, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft had indeed engaged in monopolistic behavior and ordered the company to be split into two entities—one for the operating system and another for software like Internet Explorer. However, this breakup never occurred; after an appeal, a settlement was reached in 2001. Microsoft agreed to share some of its programming interfaces with third-party developers and allowed computer manufacturers to install rival software, but it avoided harsher penalties. The case remains a pivotal moment in tech history, highlighting the challenges of regulating powerful companies in the digital age and setting a precedent for future antitrust actions against tech giants.