woah. new on DC docket. looks like the attorney general of DC filed 270 pages late Friday night documenting Facebook's multi-year resistance to discovery in its cover-up of Cambridge Analytica and related platform issues for 3yrs. stay with me until the end. /1
The most sensitive part is Facebook protecting these 4 executives from discovery/depositions. It's claimed to also be reason Zuckerberg was willing to pay $5B to the FTC.
It's an insult to every user a breach this problematic could happen without evidence from these 4 execs. /2
I mean this claim involved one of more infamous political operatives in DC at Facebook involved in a cover-up that protected the use of data in the most controversial election operation in history and allowed senior execs to continue to trade on the stock in the process. /3
for the employees and former employees (which Facebook permitted discovery), we can't see all of the queries that were done but some of the terms are certainly ones that have long been of interest. /4
so DC will play out, Facebook argues nothing new can be discovered from Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Schrage and Kaplan. It's all duplicative information and burdensome. Yes, that's patently absurd. Which brings me to the popcorn... /5
there's always been a parallel (multidistrict) case in N California and now it has worked through same issue. The Special Master assigned to sort out the similar discovery issues determined indeed it's likely Zuckerberg and Sandberg possess relevant and unique information. /6
And the plaintiffs want the communications between Sandberg and Zuckerberg, between the two of them and the board (some already turned over in very active shareholder suits), third parties and others missed. Again, this involves a cover-up. /7
The Court has given them until January 31, 2022. Again, this involves the files of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg. /8
And they know Sandberg's role. Much is redacted but a reminder she has never answered questions under oath about the scandal as far as we know it. NYT reported the topic was off limits the one time she testified to Congress. She refused summons from international Parliaments. /9
it gets better. After the court ordered the documents search for Zuckerberg and Sandberg, Facebook quickly followed up to seal whatever discovery comes of it but now was just denied by the Court. I doubt it's over but it's a strong signal much should be publicly available. /10
now turning back to the DC case... a number of documents are sealed in the 270pg report just posted but beyond the unredacted discovery terms, we learn of a dispute over "Mr. Zuckerberg's notebooks" (infamous) being subject to discovery as they are in the California case. /11
And we also learn of some of the more recent depositions. Barnes was on the ground in 2016 election. Zuckerberg and Allison Hendrix have been noticed for depositions (key exec in platform data issues and was a point on Cambridge Analytica cover-up from early on). /12
and a reminder, the 270pg report is for more time. FB has been stalling and frustrating courts for nearly 4yrs. That's how they win. And it's patently absurd they get away with it considering there is nothing to give us confidence their largest scandal won't happen again. /13
and I'll add to close, there is a massive shareholder suit regarding same cover-up and almost zero press coverage of any of this because it's (a) complex and (b) Facebook's network convinced influencers Cambridge Analytica was an overhyped story. /eof
Also linking to this thread as it’s relevant to know we literally just learned after three years that Zuckerberg was deposed by the SEC on these matters back in 2019 and there is a sealed deposition transcript.
woah. a deeply concerning internal Google doc just unsealed in US DOJ vs Google (adtech antitrust trial seven weeks from now).
Smells like bid rigging.
Translation (by me):
Red = bad for Google
Green = good for G
'Levels playing field' = helps G
'fairer competition' = helps G /1
at the very least, demonstrates the conflict of interest with having significant market power on both sides. here is a Google doc roadmapping these changes to their auctions from the buy-side and the sell-side ahead of analyzing the impact and mitigating outcry. /2
for example, here is what looks to be Google analyzing what would happen to their biz when they removed "Last Look" which gave Google a significant advantage after an ad auction had been run. Don't miss the Green at bottom. /3
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