Oh dear, Facebook filed its motion to dismiss for the Delaware shareholder suit I called the "mother of all lawsuits" because it includes charges of insider trading and governance failures related to Cambridge Analytica cover-up. I still think it may bring Facebook down. /1
I find this amusing. In a number of places in its response to the court, Facebook argues there was a failure to allege "red flags." How would the board even know that there were "red flags????" /2
I mean subpoenas from state AGs all over the country, the Federal Trade Commission and international governments wouldn't necessarily indicate anything, right? /3
I mean just the mere fact the FTC was investigating Facebook doesn't mean the board knew Facebook violated its consent order with the FTC, right? /3
speaking of "red flags," by golly that's exactly the term the SEC used when it did its stealth settlement with Facebook the same day they paid off the FTC $5 billion so Zuckerberg wouldn't be exposed to discovery and deposition around the cover-up, the very basis of this suit. /4
about that $5 billion, it's mere pocket change - a "fraction" - compared to what Facebook states the FTC originally wanted despite being many billions more than other prior FTC settlement. So don't worry about the cover-up, respect the deal it received. /5
and certainly don't worry about the insider trading allegations for 80mil shares of stock during the cover-up because that may seem like billions to us mortals, it's a rounding error to a CEO that controls all the stock, board and desperately wanted to avoid deposition. /6
and in the category of normal, misleading statements by Facebook, for the thousandth time, there was no legal certification with Cambridge Analytica. It was a flimsy one-page letter with no legal value 15 months later in 2017 after more press reports surfaced scaring them. /7
and this seems like bad lawyering by Gibson Dunn (who must be making a killing off all of these cases). They make a point the whitelisted apps that had data for another 3+ years had already ceased at the time of NYT's report but earlier noted a few hadn't. Slippery at best. /7
On the probably irrelevant arguments, apparently Mark Zuckerberg has no "emotional depth" in his relationship to his board member and at least one-time friend, Houston. That must hurt some feelings. /8
and I don't think this reads as well as Facebook's law firm intended for it to read. /9
ok, I'll stop there. Here is the thread of the original lawsuit which is much more important to understand than Facebook's motion to dismiss. I'll keep you posted, this is a big one. /10
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/…