Thread by @jason_kint

[thread incoming] Last week was bad for Facebook - lost motion to dismiss FTC breakup suit; subpoena from 1/6 cmte; ordered deposition of CEO in DC & sensitive discovery in NdCal from cover-up; COO and CEO exposed in Google antitrust suit.
BUT THAT WASN'T IT. Late Fri eve… /1

Court denied another Facebook attempt to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit - this one private and stands out for two reasons: 1) it's on behalf of both advertisers and consumers, 2) it includes both deceptive consumer data practices -and- the market rigging allegations with Google. /2

The case uses a very similar market definition as the FTC lawsuit which also moved forward last week. In this case, the Court was OK with "social media" as a market and "social networking" as a submarket of "social media" where Facebook has a monopoly. Thank you Sheryl. /3

Since the lawsuit also contains the Advertisers' case, they also needed to establish Facebook has a monopoly in the Social Advertising Market which again the Court accepted their definition. Thanks again to Sheryl Sandberg for backing up the point this is a distinct market. /4

Now that market is accepted, the Court spends pages 38-69 (31 pages!) on the misleading data practices of Facebook. This entire section is a tribute to the research of Dina Srivinivasan who previously documented how Facebook's did a bait and switch to create dominance. /5

The Court later explains why the harms were material but this is a pretty good graf explaining why privacy practices weren't in line with consumer expectations in how data was being used allowing for the company's dominance - revealed in House Judiciary's strong earlier work. /6

A go-to for tired antitrust analysis is services are free so no way for monopoly, in this case Facebook, to injure the consumer by raising prices. The Court dismisses this argument by clearly stating inform and attention have significant material value to consumers. Important. /7

There are countless pieces of evidence which the Judge recites here. This includes a top executive now NBA owner - who was in the news yesterday for other disturbing views - allegedly misleading NYT on Facebook's privacy practices around Beacon. /8

Same thing happened with the Like buttons which I long ago documented and experienced a "bait and switch" by Facebook. In 2018, Facebook provided evidence it had these "surveillance" widgets on over 8 million sites which most users expect to only track them when clicked. /9

Let's not leave out CEO Zuckerberg. He also told the world Facebook wasn't sharing private info with third parties. The allegations are that these statements were "false and misleading advertising" constituting "exclusionary conduct" under the Sherman Act. Pretty much. /10

You may notice some of the dates above go back a decade hence Facebook argued the case should be dismissed but the Court also ruled claims are timely as the clock goes back 4yrs but rolls forward from the last misrepresentations - two are documented after Dec 3, 2016. /11

Facebook also lost its argument that these claims were neutralized as the Court says they entirely failed to suggest how anyone would have known Facebook technically wasn't doing what it said it was doing. Speaking for the technology side here, the Court nailed this one. /12

Facebook's only wins come in Advertisers section (p70-99) which documents how FB copied, acquired and killed competition including by buying Onavo to surveil mobile usage and weaponized its APIs against competition. But Court will allow the Advertisers to amend this part. /13

Importantly, the Court did not dismiss Advertisers' allegations FB and Google rigged the market. These claims are in the State AGs suit vs Google (redactions were removed Friday showing Zuckerberg and Sandberg involvement). This is the first time I've seen them in a FB suit. /14

If proven, this is some pretty alarming evidence of harm to advertisers in these documented price increases after Google and Facebook sealed their deal together. This is before you even get to any brand harm in supporting Facebook's platforms. /15

Although the lawsuit is on behalf of Consumers and Advertisers, there is one stakeholder who serves both of them, publishers (who I represent), and has a slam dunk case these allegations if proven also harmed publishers, too.
Basically Facebook harmed civil society at large. /16

I'll end here. It's with (9th) Circuit Judge Lucy Koh in NdCal as 5:20-cv-8570. It's notable with significant harms anchored to misleading data practices and relies on evidence from stellar work of House antitrust sub cmte, FTC and the State AGs. Learning from each other. /eof