In the parallel lawsuit vs Facebook due to its Cambridge Analytica cover-up, we just learned more in filings posted today as FB tries to shut down discovery and deposition ordered of Zuckerberg. FB included 4,200+ employees on messages they are claiming are privileged. lol. /1
If you're wondering about the highlighted name, it's the "equal partner" in the company that harvested the millions of records and sold them to Cambridge Analytica who was sketchily hired by Facebook in Nov 2015 as the Guardian reporter was closing in on the scandal. /2
Facebook's "privilege log" of everything they want to withhold from discovery was incredibly vague, generalizes groups and roles and clearly includes a lot of names and companies who according to decisions in other courts aren't privileged. Fairly absurd attempt to bury stuff. /3
Interesting, outside "consultants" which NdCal Court has already ruled aren't privileged since they weren't providing legal advice for this lawsuit but instead Zuckerberg announced to world were helping make sure the product was safe. What two firms helped with this effort? /4
Facebook filed just Friday in NdCal to seal names of FTI Consulting and Stroz Friedberg which had surfaced during a hearing but now we see them in public documents in DC Superior Court one day later. Outcast Agency is a "PR" firm Facebook has long used with ties to a16z, too. /5
There is also a doc the AG of DC office wants titled "Comms Source of Truth" which according to the motion had hundreds of people on it then later had outside counsel on it that Facebook now claimed to be privileged. The title and description of the doc are very interesting. /6
One name jumps out and that's a former journalist who in her now unsealed deposition said she was actually doing Strategic Communications directly for Sheryl Sandberg. Sandberg avoided testimony with Congress around this entire matter and likely was a key conduit of clean-up. /7
Basically Facebook is WAAAAY over-reaching in trying to suggest communications are privileged with people who aren't even attorneys or in the case of these two people they're lawyers who represent industry groups and I have no idea how they could also be working for FB, too. /8
And for your trivia, among the 4,200+ employees claimed on privileged communications, there is even one Senate Majority Leader's daughter. Keep you posted but between NdCal and DC Superior, things are moving much more quickly of late. I'll add the Sat. thread below this. /9
Anyway, here is the parallel case in NdCal which also moved over the weekend. /eof
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
Let’s do this. As I’ve said in the past, nothing makes a statement on important news close to the newspaper front page. Across America, almost every editor went with the simple fact, “Guilty.”
Let’s start with the biggest circulation. /1
I shouldn’t overlook Chicago and Los Angeles, Same. /2
Now let’s drop down to Florida for maybe obvious reasons to see how they reported it… /3
Super smart, important read in Washington Post for regulators, media executives, lawmakers. At a high level, Meta continues to use its market power to suppress all value in brands, news orgs and media companies. Brands are proxies for trust, but profit and data to Meta. /1
“These are platforms doing what platforms do, which is trying to optimize the time spent and the data collected. They don’t really have much interest or care for what happens to news outlets or journalists,” said @emilybell. /2
@emilybell But what is interesting here that needs to be pursued. How will Canada react considering they have a code that seeks to curb this imbalance in bargaining power. Facebook is attempting to run over to prevent further spread dismissing it as ineffective law. They’re wrong. /3