"We have to prepare for the worst here." - VP, ad chief
"I think there is a real chance this is a very bad moment for us" - VP
"how long can we get away with the reach overestimation?"
"This is a lawsuit waiting to happen." /1
These are statements in "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" evidence unsealed in a Facebook fraud case over weekend. In Feb, FB had framed the complaint to press as "cherry-picked" but we can now see full threads including Facebook COO, CFO, and half-dozen senior VPs. /2
Quick explainer (1 of 3): Measurement issues were an ongoing issue according to COO Sandberg to CFO Wehner. And an analyst had now noted Facebook's projected numbers in its advertising planning tools were even larger than actual people (using the US census). /2
Quick explainer (2 of 3): This was especially problematic in a moment when Facebook was rolling out a new marketing narrative that was "people-based" to get away from questions around fake accounts, fraud, bots and many of the existing concerns when buying from Facebook. /3
Quick explainer (3 of 3): My org, @DCNorg, had filed with court more than a year ago to unseal the evidence. We had prior experience with cover-ups by FB and found it easily in public's interest to see the full context of what were now fraud claims against the market leader. /4
This proved out. For example, exhibit 16 is an entire thread of top Facebook execs preparing for their Q3 2017 earnings call. In it, they discuss not informing their investors on the call, the real impact to market from discrepancies, and how to spin the issues publicly. /5
Facebook likes to claim these issues didn't impact billing of clients as they don't serve ads to these users.
The red box is written by VP ad chief, Carolyn Everson, as she sounds red alarm. ("SUMA" is internal parlance for a single user with multiple accounts).
You be judge. /6
Remarkably, as execs scrambled ahead of earnings, CFO "Dave" meeting had decided they wouldn't include it in their prepared remarks. Their rationale being it was an advertising issue but not a business risk (despite involving the planning tool for 97% of their revenues). /7
Rob Goldman confirms the red alarm here (and throws in a side tidbit about Russia Today).
Again, the alarm is this would have impacted budgets and planning (ergo, everyone else in the market - publishers, advertisers, investors) and the two top ad execs are confirming it. /8
We also see their now-familiar PR strategy of using dominance to coach ad client advocates, propping up small business impact ("cover your melon!"). (note: XFN is their internal team for metrics-related issues - a key group for hacking growth and profits) /9
The key remaining redactions in email threads are addresses (irony considering Facebook's ongoing breach of 500+ million phone numbers and emails but I digress): Sandberg, COO
Everson, VP
Olivan, VP
Rose, VP
Goldman, VP
Fischer, VP
Vora, VP
Wehner, CFO /10
Here is what is now known as "exhibit 16" (one of 75) if you want to fully review with your own eyes. You can decide if it's cherry-picked or if these are mid-level employees.
Nope, it's another cover-up from putting growth ahead of integrity. /11 …d-40e9-822b-081bc894b6af.filesusr.com/ugd/372b91_40f…
Finally, here is my other thread from last night that took off and has other links as background. I decided to write a new thread hoping it would further clarify a few things. Cheers. /12
Justice takes time. What he knew when. AOC will remember this, “Their lawsuit says Zuckerberg—facing the risk of personal liability over the data privacy scandal—got himself out of trouble by agreeing to pay a larger-than-necessary $5 billion fine with shareholder money.” 1/3
Here is the full report from Bloomberg on Zuckerberg’s deposition which apparently was cut short and late on docs on Dec 3rd. Board members Thiel, Andreessen, others all being deposed these weeks. Press allowed Facebook to rewrite history on this. 2/3 news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-p…
Here is a good thread that will get you into the details. Sheryl Sandberg also deposed although her assumed prior SEC deposition was sealed. We did finally get Zuckerberg’s which showed his nerves and that the scandal was on his mind much earlier. Thanks to @zamaan_qureshi 3/3
Overnight: FTC plans to call CEO Zuckerberg and (former) CTO Schroepfer in first 2 wks of trial (late April) in DC seeking to break up the company for abuse of monopoly laws. Also on their short list are some very big roles and names. Very likely driving behaviors at the top. /1
As I know their roles...
Chris Cox - chief product officer who took a break when scandals accelerated, and avoided testimony in UK.
Javier Olivan - now COO, key lieutenant
Sheryl Sandberg - former COO, on everything
Alex Schultz - key growth hacker, now CMO /2
Adam Mosseri - key lieutenant, now runs Insta
Dave Wehner - former CFO, deal approval including $19B with no real revenue WhatsApp
Fidji Simo - (former) always in mix, product leadership
Guy Rosen - Onavo alleged packet sniffing of WhatsApp, Snap /3
Woah. Google filed redacted versions of its Summary Judgment exhibits in Texas adtech antitrust case ahead of the March 31 trial. Although this case mirrors DOJ's case awaiting decision, it has even more eye-popping evidence. And an expert suggesting $29B in penalties. /1
"Project Bernanke" is an oldie but goodie that gets a lot of discussion. ICYMI, Google would allegedly increase the first highest and the second highest bid in its 2nd-price auctions then reinvest the "saved" funds back into other bids to Google wins more auctions. /2
The problem is while it may have ended up providing more revenue to the publisher (from/through Google) and no doubt to Google, Inc, it allegedly ignored the revenue which could have come through another channel if Google didn't manipulate the rev share as it ran the auctions. /3
US v Google II Closing arguments today.
70min for DOJ-> 95min for Google-> 20min for DOJ. Having predicted this case as better odds than search case (Google already lost in August), nothing changed my mind today. I wrote down: influence/$, complexity, deception, and arrogance. /1
I'm staying high level on perception first as findings of fact already covered much. On influence/$, DOJ pointed out early on and then again in rebuttal that every single witness presented by Google (except one) was paid or had grants from Google. /2
On complexity, Google again executed on its spaghetti defense with lead counsel, Karen Dunn, bookending trial by running over as she did in her opening. She appeared to skip dozens of slides, many minutes of close. And she loaded her slides while talking twice as fast as DOJ! /3
Bam. There is it. US Department of Justice has filed - requesting divestiture of Chrome as a remedy for court's finding against Google. Android at risk, too. /1
As it relates to Android, here is how DOJ puts it. Forced divestiture is option that "swiftly, efficiently, and decisively strikes at the locus of some anticompetitive conduct at issue here" but we're ok with tight behavioral remedies with option to divest if they don't work. /2
Revenue sharing for search default and/or preferential treatment - dead. Google's tens of billions to Apple - dead (last I saw it's about 15% of Apple's profits). Reminder, this all needs to be argued and approved by Court and then will get appealed. Still far off. /3
KA-BOOM. So when Google and its proxies (see so-called Chamber of Progress), friendly academics and analysts continue to suggest Chrome has nothing to do with the case, please ask them how many days they were at the trial. 1/3
This is super important. It’s an area @DCNorg (premium publishers) are intensely interested and concerned they get right around ability to restrict. The Court and trial made it clear they understood its importance during trial. We’ll be reading closely on Wednesday. 2/3
Here is the full report from Bloomberg who consistent with the entire trial showed up every day, did the hard work, and now got the massive scoop ahead of Wed filing. 3/3 bloomberg.com/news/articles/…