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
wow. NdCal just denied Facebook's attempt to dismiss securities suit for Cambridge Analytica cover-up. Court says plaintiffs credibly alleged Zuckerberg and Sandberg knew it "possessed over 40mil user profiles" way earlier. 4th amended complaint added/redacted cited evidence. /1
Count I, II and III now proceed, all alleged (civil) violations of 1934 SEC Act including over $5B in stock sales by Zuckerberg. This is the case Facebook already took up to SCOTUS to be denied cert. In DE, they settled similar case as director Andreessen was set to testify. /2
In this case, the executive defendants are Zuckerberg, Sandberg and CFO Wehner. What is interesting is it's added new evidence squeezed out more recently in courts including Court sanctions against Sandberg for deleting "relevant emails" over a pseudonymous gmail account. /3
Big. A major new law & tech paper takes on the economics of behavioral advertising - the kind that tracks users across multiple businesses and contexts, not just on sites they choose to visit.
It challenges industry’s favorite claim: that tracking is a “win-win” for everyone. /1
Bear with my thread. You may know I've been sharing Google and Meta monopoly abuse concerns for nearly a decade (courts now ruling). That said, I've always said ubiquitous data collection across the web (mostly NOT on the duopoly's own services!) is what fuels their dominance. /2
At the heart of the debate is this Figure 1 - and two very different ways to frame it.
Framing #1 (the industry narrative): Data aka 'signal' -> Better targeting -> More relevant ads -> More revenue -> Free content -> Everyone wins!
Simple. Elegant. But entirely misleading. /3
The 8hr video of Jack Smith’s testimony was released by Congress on New Years’ Eve in between Epstein and Venezuela. It’s an extraordinary display of Smith’s integrity and attention to justice and fairness on 1/6. Allison Gill deserves praise for curating the key clips. 1/4
Smith clearly represents all who worked towards justice and public interest, expressing his confidence and rationale he had the evidence to prove Jan 6th case to a jury. He also shows his gratitude to those retaliated against - in just doing their jobs. This stood out to me. 2/4
I must say I’m impressed by Covington & Burling law firm who has stood strong during this retaliation. This is just 1/6 - they’ve worked with Smith to be cautious to not discuss any confidential details in his classified docs report still sealed by Judge Cannon. (1.3x to fit) 3/4
So many mind blowing sentences in this just incredible Wall Street Journal report. Starting here, “Witkoff, who hasn’t traveled to Ukraine this year, is set to visit Russia for the sixth time next week and will again meet Putin. He insisted he isn’t playing favorites.” /1
“Inside were details of the commercial and
economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.” /2
“European official asked Witkoff to start speaking with allies over the secure fixed line Europe's heads of state use to conduct sensitive
diplomatic conversations. Witkoff demurred, as he traveled too much to use the cumbersome system.” /3
Saturday’s “No Kings” protests have filled front pages across America with impactful visuals and headlines of peaceful protests. Many included the eye popping NYC Times Square shot. Here in the Dothan Eagle (Alabama). But everyone turned out. See Montana in its Missoulian. /1
Plenty of big city energy from St. Louis, Missouri to Chicago, Illinois. /2
Midwest with Cleveland, Ohio to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. /3
US v Google remedies: Nothing groundbreaking from return of DOJ’s star economist this morning. Court tested if his concerns over solely behavioral remedies assume distrust in Google (won’t follow court orders). I don’t think it mattered relative to where we were last night... /1
Yes, some will read as leaning against structural-remedy interest. I took it simply her clarifying she doesn’t need to lean on distrust if structural is shown tech feasible. Although witness pointed out distrust harms competition investment levels. /2
Court also very much nodded head when witness Lee explained why he didn’t do “but for” analysis to a dollar amount. Mehta also determined in search it was infeasible and unnecessary so cross that out of Google’s defense imho. /3