Listening now, man the judge is angry at Facebook. Asks plaintiffs to call for sanctioning them over their bad behavior in discovery. Also calls for the lawyers to also be sanctioned. Wow.
Judge Chhabria: "I want to invite the plaintiffs to invite to file motions for sanctions if they agree with me, and in any other areas where Facebook has engaged in sanctionable conduct. The partners in the pleading and Facebook should be jointly liable in the sanctions."
Judge Chhabria is saying the associates perhaps should not be sanctioned, but the partners should be. Perhaps to pay attorney costs for the other side. He's holding #BigLaw accountable.
I really can't emphasize how right @jason_kint has been about this hearing. It's explosive and the judge is extremely angry at Facebook and their fancy lawyers.
The Judge is saying that Facebook representative Sandeep Solanki is responsible for making all decisions on discovery, and if the firm refuses to make a decision "Facebook will be sanctioned." If they go back on a decision, "Facebook will be sanctioned."
Wow.
This means Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg could be deposed multiple times by hostile plaintiff attorneys, and the judge isn't going to be nice about it. If I'm Zuckerberg I'm not happy with my lawyers.
1. Ok, this is kind of interesting. NBER's industrial organization section, which is the gathering of economists who study antitrust, just did something that seems a bit odd with regards to its annual conference. nber.org/conferences/in…
2. On day one of their conference, Friday, there was a panel with a bunch of antitrust economists who very much dislike Lina Khan and the new anti-monopoly movement. It was a lively panel, and I watched it.
3. Economist @florianederer live-tweeted the panel, and it kicked up something of a storm among those of us who care about the politics of antitrust economics. You can read his thread here.
I am no MMTer but I'm struck by how the basic critique by @Noahpinion of MMT - 'they always claim they are right' - apply to failed mainstream models of economics. None of them got the financial crisis or free trade or shortages.
Price controls are a good idea sometimes and a bad one sometimes. We are imposing controls for shipping right now, which no one in this debate seems to understand. We cannot impose broad price controls because we lack the capacity, which no one in this debate seems to understand.
The point of economics is not to be right or wrong, that's entirely incidental. The point is to develop a political language that excludes normal people from discussing political economy. That is it. mattstoller.substack.com/p/what-is-the-…
1. There is a major change afoot among antitrust regulators. The FTC's Lina Khan and the Antitrust Division's Jonathan Kanter are not screwing around, and are about to take on all the money and power in the world.
2. As anyone who's been through one knows, mergers suck. A few weeks ago, @adamconover described why his show - Adam Ruins Everything - was canceled. The show was popular, but that didn't matter.
3. In 2016, AT&T breathlessly announced it would buy Time Warner. We have phones, they have TV shows. What if... people watched TV shows on their phones?!?! Someone forgot to mention that people already did that. But whatever. about.att.com/story/att_to_a…
2. Apple's decision to block tracking on mobile devices significantly harmed Facebook's ad business, which is good. But Apple did not apply the same provisions to Google's mobile services. So ad money moved from FB to Google. Why did Apple do this?
3. It's simple. Google pays Apple something like $15B a year for Google search to be the default on the iPhone's Safari browser. That's at the heart of the DOJ antitrust suit against Google filed in 2020.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein opposes the bill because it targets "three California companies," Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
And now California Senator Alex Padilla is up. He's mostly just trying to avoid getting cross-wise with either big tech, or with labor, which doesn't like big tech.