😂 , Google, a company with more lawyers, lobbyists, communications people and money than anyone made a clerical error and leaked out sensitive information about its alleged collusion and bid rigging. /1 wsj.com/articles/googl…
This is consistent with the antitrust charges in the complaint and now appears to be confirmed by Google in its *supposed to be* redacted filing. Hard to understand how it’s not trading on inside information. There is a nice illustration why it’s problematic in the complaint. /2
WSJ also reports that Google confirmed the existence of the deal with Facebook. Signed by Sandberg and including how the two companies would act if investigated. This matching of audiences appears to be new and seems like privacy circumvention to me. /3
last comment, this amuses me. I wonder if this is the UK ISBA study. It was super good but it also found over 10% of revenue couldn’t even be traced. It also showed Google participating, and of course maximizing profit, on the buying, selling and transacting. Insider trading. /4
Actually, one bitter comment. “Project Bernanke,” “Jedi Blue,” et al, these are all cute project code names but behind these hundreds of millions is enough $$$ to fund all of the journalists that lost their jobs in 2020.
So everyone should be infuriated. /5
This is the Google case if you need more background. Start with the WSJ report first and then dive into this thread. There are now 15 state Attorneys General signed on to it. And importantly it includes a section one charge that ties to Facebook, too.
Here is the part of the last filing of the state AGs complaint with the allegations about Google's secret "Project Bernanke." You can see where it's redacted and send a Thank You card to Google's law firm (ht @matthewstoller) for exposing all of this.
Statement from me on the Wall Street Journal report earlier this evening. ⬆️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
more news yesterday in flurry of activity in lawsuit vs Facebook for (over)paying FTC $5B to protect Zuckerberg. Big names involved. Board records inspection shows who's who in 'approval' - everyone now gone except Zuckerberg, Andresseen and Alford. Gets interesting quickly... /1
Yes, Andreessen joined Thiel in politics with full-throated endorsement of Trump with close allies. Alford was CFO of Chan Zuckerberg right before approval. WSJ reported Chenault and Zients (important: now Biden's chief of staff) stepped down over disagreements with Mark Z. /2
So what's happening. Well, first in April 2024 all of these prior and current board members were served in the lawsuit. Again, this is based on a prior records inspection of non-privileged board documents and the Court at that point deciding to allow the case to move forward. /3
Friday night KA-boom. In adtech antitrust lawsuit against Google, court has ordered the state AGs may depose Google co-founder Sergey Brin and CEO Sundar Pichai. Huge. /1
So the two cited reasons Pichai will be deposed (although not all of them) are incredibly sensitive. 1), “Jedi Blue,” the alleged collusion with Facebook that everyone wrongly wrote off back earlier in this lawsuit. Google CEO Pichai met directly with Facebook CEO Zuckerberg. /2
A reminder the Google and Facebook deal (aka the “NBA” or “Jedi Blue”) is also in a private antitrust suit against Facebook. The deal was signed by the lieutenants of the CEOs (Sheryl Sandberg for Facebook). /3
US v Google flooded docket (103 filings!) over weekend as Court said Friday...hey now, let's skip summary judgment, this baby is going to trial. Much is companies trying to keep their secrets sealed but we get a sense for the witnesses. And a small taste of evidence to come. /1
On the companies filing to keep their secrets sealed which they mostly provided under subpoena, it's a mix of adtech, agencies, platforms, you name it. /2
We also learn some glossary items which likely come up:
'RASTA' - Google's tool to evaluate new 'launches' (aka changes) in ad serving system, runs on live traffic
'Ariane' - identifies and summarized launches
'Launch' - creative name (lol), it replaced Ariane in 2020/2021 /3
SCOTUS just posted order list. It granted cert to Facebook on its Cambridge Analytica matter. Only first question but that’s a huge one. Basically should Facebook have disclosed to shareholders what it started to cover up in 2015 rather than presenting risk as hypothetical? /1
Here is the actual first question as written. One immediate item, it’s outrageous if Justice Kavanaugh didn’t/doesn’t recuse seeing his reported best friend, Joel Kaplan, was directly involved in the matter and its cover up. He threw his SCOTUS confirmation party IIRC. /2
Here is a link into background. I strongly urge press not to overlook this or assume you know fact history. Over the years much has played out in coverup and much of the reporting has been bent towards Facebook’s spin. I am more than happy to point you to the court records. /3
“X has lost dozens of major advertisers under Musk’s ownership, with 74 out of the top 100 U.S. advertisers from that month no longer spending on the platform as of May.” 1/4
Smart NBC report focusing on amplification, velocity and reach, “X isn’t living up to its own policies when it allows violent extremists to use the platform’s amplification features.” 2/4
“It’s not clear to what extent people at X were aware that the company was monetizing the extremist hashtags prior to NBC News’ reporting.” 3/4
Let’s do this. As I’ve said in the past, nothing makes a statement on important news close to the newspaper front page. Across America, almost every editor went with the simple fact, “Guilty.”
Let’s start with the biggest circulation. /1
I shouldn’t overlook Chicago and Los Angeles, Same. /2
Now let’s drop down to Florida for maybe obvious reasons to see how they reported it… /3