Woah. Court just ruled to certify the class in lawsuit alleging Facebook sold ads based on inflated potential reach and then fraudulently covered it up. I'll link to more background on the case (and damning discovery) but first we have a few words from the federal judge. /1
Court does a nice job in a few sentences explaining Facebook told advertisers its "potential reach" in the US was 200 million people - note the word "people" is important - before they would narrow to a more targeted group leveraging Facebook's surveillance engine. /2
Facebook's (no, I won't call them Meta) lawyers first tried to suggest the class fails because it includes both small and large advertisers which went over like a lead balloon with this federal judge, errr "the objection is not well taken." /3
Court rules that the class is typical as all advertisers saw the same "potential reach estimates inflated by a similar percentage." /4
Court also ruled the class was adequate and the record hadn't found they didn't suffer a concrete injury among other reasons. Again, fail by Facebook. /5
In fact, the plaintiffs had claimed they would not have spent certain budget $ on Facebook if they knew the Potential reach was inaccurate. So this is a big deal. /6
Court even uses the "word" deceived to describe the effect on the plaintiffs. Keep that word in mind as we continue along this journey to use a word loved by Sheryl Sandberg. /7
In the key question of whether Facebook's inflated potential reach mislead advertisers, the Court rules Facebook doesn't disagree but "hurls a grab bag of challenges to plaintiffs' ability of proving an answer in their favor." Ouch. /8
Back to the word, "people," Court also notes Facebook doesn't dispute it originally described the inflated potential reach as "people" despite it representing "accounts" many of which were duplicate, fake, etc etc etc. /9
Here we get to the Court pointing to docs showing Facebook's knowledge (the fraud allegation) and that this metric was "the most important number in its ads creation interface" impacting budget plans and strategies. /10
And this line from Court speaks to Facebook's market power and antitrust cases also in various courts along with the necessity of class as no reasonable person (read as advertiser in this case) is likely to be able to pursue this lawsuit on their own against Facebook. /11
Bringing us to the order from the Court to certify the class in both the common law fraud claims against Facebook and injunctive relied under the unfair competition law. This case will include millions of advertisers on Facebook. /12
ok, here is archived thread on this lawsuit. You should also know FB whistleblower filed related SEC complaint. FB's very top execs appeared to decide not to share at earnings (since it wouldn't hurt $ and ads biz unless advertisers knew! - yikes). /eof
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/…
throwback time at Supreme Court today. Remember when Facebook looked away while data was harvested and sold to Cambridge Analytica (and other firms) ahead of 2016 election then covered it up? Topic finally hit SCOTUS - 10am (Kavanaugh not recusing would be outrageous). 1/3
basically facebook is trying to argue why it didn't need to disclose the "breach" despite never confirming it (2015-2018 which included elections) ahead of scandal going global in 2018. They've since somewhat successfully rewritten history on what happened thru soft press. 2/3
here is a link to oral arguments (supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…) and a thread into more info. Justice Kavanaugh is best buds with a Facebook exec who was at center of scandal and cover-up. One hour of arguments (US Solicitor General, too). 3/3 x.com/jason_kint/sta…
Just before the clock struck midnight, the Dept of Justice and Google filed their updated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the adtech antitrust trial ahead of closing arguments (Nov 25th/EDVA). /1
Google clocked in at 787 pages, DOJ at 422. Much more reading but I found the most enjoyable sections to be DOJ's reminders of Google's evidence abuses along with killing the duty to deal arguments Google has been pumping through its tentacles of paid proxies. /2
"Google chose to train its employees about how to abuse the attorney-client privilege and destroy documents." This was a big freaking deal before the trial started, in all of Google's other antitrust trials and it will be here, too. Don't forget it. /3
Google break-up talks. Big hearing tomorrow fighting over discovery. One question unanswered is... YouTube. Where does it sit? Almost no mention in any of the trials (app store, adtech, search) although arguably one of the most significant "fruits" of G's monopoly abuses. /1
I use the word, "fruit," intentionally as case law says one of the four critical objectives in remedies is denying them and it's fairly unequivocal YouTube is YouTube due to the query+click scale of Google's 90%+ market share in search. YouTube is now #2 discovery surface. /2
Why hasn't YouTube come up more? I would argue it clearly wasn't needed to prove the liability in the trials. And Google's legal defenses have focused on trying to muddy the relevant market. Google worked hard but failed to bring in video (think TV, Netflix, TikTok) in market. /3
There it is. Confirmation directly from the Department of Justice that divestiture of Chrome, Android and/or Play are all on the table as remedies to Google's antitrust abuses. US DOJ's remedies framework just posted. Their final proposal is due Nov 20th. /1
It's a fairly broad, ten pages that starts by reiterating the findings of the DC Court and the duty to seek an order not only addressing the existing harms from Google's illegal conduct but - this is critically important - prevent recurrence going forward. /2
here are the listed findings in a tl;dr format. Note the point of illegal conduct for over ten years and the importance of scale and data. /3