"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
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/…
throwback time at Supreme Court today. Remember when Facebook looked away while data was harvested and sold to Cambridge Analytica (and other firms) ahead of 2016 election then covered it up? Topic finally hit SCOTUS - 10am (Kavanaugh not recusing would be outrageous). 1/3
basically facebook is trying to argue why it didn't need to disclose the "breach" despite never confirming it (2015-2018 which included elections) ahead of scandal going global in 2018. They've since somewhat successfully rewritten history on what happened thru soft press. 2/3
here is a link to oral arguments (supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…) and a thread into more info. Justice Kavanaugh is best buds with a Facebook exec who was at center of scandal and cover-up. One hour of arguments (US Solicitor General, too). 3/3 x.com/jason_kint/sta…
Just before the clock struck midnight, the Dept of Justice and Google filed their updated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the adtech antitrust trial ahead of closing arguments (Nov 25th/EDVA). /1
Google clocked in at 787 pages, DOJ at 422. Much more reading but I found the most enjoyable sections to be DOJ's reminders of Google's evidence abuses along with killing the duty to deal arguments Google has been pumping through its tentacles of paid proxies. /2
"Google chose to train its employees about how to abuse the attorney-client privilege and destroy documents." This was a big freaking deal before the trial started, in all of Google's other antitrust trials and it will be here, too. Don't forget it. /3
Google break-up talks. Big hearing tomorrow fighting over discovery. One question unanswered is... YouTube. Where does it sit? Almost no mention in any of the trials (app store, adtech, search) although arguably one of the most significant "fruits" of G's monopoly abuses. /1
I use the word, "fruit," intentionally as case law says one of the four critical objectives in remedies is denying them and it's fairly unequivocal YouTube is YouTube due to the query+click scale of Google's 90%+ market share in search. YouTube is now #2 discovery surface. /2
Why hasn't YouTube come up more? I would argue it clearly wasn't needed to prove the liability in the trials. And Google's legal defenses have focused on trying to muddy the relevant market. Google worked hard but failed to bring in video (think TV, Netflix, TikTok) in market. /3
There it is. Confirmation directly from the Department of Justice that divestiture of Chrome, Android and/or Play are all on the table as remedies to Google's antitrust abuses. US DOJ's remedies framework just posted. Their final proposal is due Nov 20th. /1
It's a fairly broad, ten pages that starts by reiterating the findings of the DC Court and the duty to seek an order not only addressing the existing harms from Google's illegal conduct but - this is critically important - prevent recurrence going forward. /2
here are the listed findings in a tl;dr format. Note the point of illegal conduct for over ten years and the importance of scale and data. /3