Snap! FTC amended lawsuit to break up Facebook - green light from the court! Congrats to FTC.
Rather than spend time dunking on FB's friendlies who suggested it had failed, I hope you will ignore their next round of talking points since the last ones were so damn wrong. /1
First, they told you the FTC failed to even define a market - their go-to line. This was entirely false, the court said they had failed to provide metrics to back it up which they added in spades to the amended complaint which had the same core theory as the Court notes. /2
The really really obviously on Facebook's payroll and influence list said things like the FTC had already "approved" the Instagram and WhatsApp deals which were sort of the rookie-league arguments and false. But again, the Judge clarified why those points were irrelevant. /3
back to actual arguments of the case, the Court had already accepted the market definition and then now tips the hat to the use of three metrics as backup. Anyone who has actually run a digital biz knows why you must look at multiple metrics holistically. So does the Judge. /4
In terms of Facebook's argument that buying Instagram and WhatsApp wasn't anticompetitive and bad for consumers, the Court throws in the compelling point of how Facebook pulled back its own investment in its own product after the deal. Point taken. /5
And love seeing the Court agree with Facebook that consumer harm also matters and that can't be proven on price (since facebook is free) but then agreeing the allegations are solid. DISCOVERY ON THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE A GOLD MINE as we all know, Facebook is a cesspool. /6
I mean one more point here on consumers. The allegation is market power allowed FB to lower its service quality for consumers. Does anyone doubt this? Do we really believe Facebook wouldn't have better addressed its problems of the past few years if it had more competition? /7
So when Facebook attempts to argue FTC re-arranged chairs on Titanic or FB's paid lobby group (hi @adamkovac) points out meaningless language in the decision (yes, Count II remains in the complaint), please return to my first tweet as they also said it should be thrown out. /8
And my threaded comments on the original amended complaint.
also, I should have pointed out the Court also threw out Facebook's weak sauce argument against the Chair's ability to file the case (google and amazon have tried similar arguments in other matters).
As background, here was my thread on the amended FTC case filed in August.
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/…