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.
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