Jason Kint Profile picture
Aug 15 11 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Bam. Facebook just filed its brief for Nov 6th SCOTUS hearing. As much as you may think you know the cover-up, you really should read. I will link to Facebook's petition (and response when filed) along with the actual complaint moving fwd in 9th circuit. But two things. /1 Image
First, if Justice Kavanaugh doesn't recuse then I argue it's the biggest conflict of interest by SCOTUS this year considering he's best friends and reportedly roomed at home of Facebook's top policy exec - Joel Kaplan, in middle of scandal - during confirmation hearings. /2 Image
It's good the complaint captures nuanced items like Facebook hiring one of the two co-founders of GSR (the other they made the fall guy) after they found out their data was being sold but before the public knew it. We knew this, but most press missed on it in the noise. /3 Image
But it also picks up on new items like Katie Harbath (mentioned 60+ times in the complaint) appears to be "M" and "N" in the Facebook message thread revealing they knew about issues with the company back in 2015. /4 Image
They also capture the deceptive label of "certification" applied by Facebook and Zuckerberg during press statements and testimony despite knowing it was legally dubious cover-up material. And that Andy Stone was reportedly the spokesperson helping bury this. /5 Image
However, despite my following near every detail, they also found new items like Kogan had TWO agreements with Facebook to delete data. One was dated a day after Brexit vote (so likely signed under pressure) but I was unaware it came after a Sandberg/Kaplan meeting in DC. /6 Image
Ultimately, it's a securities case getting at when Facebook knew risks and how it chose to (not) disclose them. But underlying evidence strikes at heart of governance, prior testimony and a huge derivative lawsuit in Delaware. If Facebook fails to get SCOTUS to kill it. /7
Here is a link to the actual full complaint. You may be surprised at how much has been recorded into history wrong. Even the simple idea that Facebook data was actually sold. /8 supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/2…
And here is a link to Facebook's brief to SCOTUS. It's led by Gibson Dunn (Lipshutz is big gun. GD was involved in "audit" - scandal clean up with FTI and Stroz Friedberg. Also sanctioned for burying and delaying related evidence in the mdl lawsuit). /9 supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/2…
Image
This thread will take you into the original cert request and various documents from the lawsuits and history of the case (for those interested). Back to Google antitrust now ;) /10
Adding the Wired citation to the end here. /11

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jason Kint

Jason Kint Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jason_kint

Aug 8
wow. an amazing 325 page google strategy document quietly unsealed buried in google antitrust docket. It's gonna take a long thread but I have pulled out the gems. It's from 2017 planning, no doubt Google will just say these were only ideas but many will look very familiar. /1 Image
For more than a decade, Google has been shifting revenue away from rest of the web to its own properties where it doesn't have to share any of it (I share a chart every earnings backing this up). But here it is spelled out by their own employees as the intentional strategy. /2 Image
In a sea of project code names, "Narnia 2.0" is all over this document. The great Julia Angwin reported late in 2016 on how Google changed its policy merging users' anonymous browsing with PII and search activity creating a single profile/cookie. Now read the yellow highlight. /3 Image
Read 33 tweets
Aug 5
Sorry, my "bam!" was cryptic.

Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the U.S....

It's 286 pages - be back with a thread shortly along with implications for the adtech antitrust trial starting in five weeks. /1 Image
ok, here we go. I read the 286 pages for those who don't have time. Or to help translate to industry and public minds. This is a landmark decision vs Google. The court has found Google's exclusive deals, primarily with Apple, foreclosed one half of the search market. /2 Image
it also found Google manipulated its ad prices without - even considering - competitive effects. Reminder they doubled their search text ads on surfaces so THIS ABUSE SCREWED THE PUBLIC AND PUBLISHERS BY MANY MANY TENS OF BILLIONS. /3 Image
Read 26 tweets
Aug 5
Excellent. Good news for those who care about the public interest in antitrust lawsuits vs Google brought by the United States.
First, Dept of Justice filed over weekend for an "adverse inference" as to evidence purging that surfaced in the app store and search trials. /1 Image
Second, several major newsrooms (NYT, Bloomberg, MLex, WaPo) appeared to take lessons from the prior lawsuits as to Google's shenanigans to bury evidence, close the courtroom and spin the press coverage. They've already preemptively filed this wknd to avoid the same issues. /2 Image
Here is their Concluding argument along with a link to the full motion. This is huge. We need the plural press shining a light on this trial, the rest of media industry is a victim of the allegations. /3 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Image
Read 6 tweets
Aug 2
As we approach US v Google trial (9/9), more docs unsealed. Today, arguments from DOJ unsuccessfully trying to throw out a Google-funded experts' survey producing hundreds of pages of opinions on the current ad market. Most interesting to me, deep in it is a "No Contact" list. /1 Image
It's an important work product for Google's defense. another expert called it unreliable. For one, all six of the "Big Six" ad agency holding companies were on the "No Contact" list, five of them accounted for like 2/3 of the ad buying through Google. So yeah, a problem here. /2 Image
The "No Contact list" also included nearly every major adtech firm, every major publisher (almost every single DCN member), so I would seriously question how they didn't filter out most experts in this exclusion list. /3
Read 8 tweets
Jul 24
woah. a deeply concerning internal Google doc just unsealed in US DOJ vs Google (adtech antitrust trial seven weeks from now).
Smells like bid rigging.
Translation (by me):
Red = bad for Google
Green = good for G
'Levels playing field' = helps G
'fairer competition' = helps G /1 Image
at the very least, demonstrates the conflict of interest with having significant market power on both sides. here is a Google doc roadmapping these changes to their auctions from the buy-side and the sell-side ahead of analyzing the impact and mitigating outcry. /2 Image
for example, here is what looks to be Google analyzing what would happen to their biz when they removed "Last Look" which gave Google a significant advantage after an ad auction had been run. Don't miss the Green at bottom. /3 Image
Read 11 tweets
Jul 17
more news yesterday in flurry of activity in lawsuit vs Facebook for (over)paying FTC $5B to protect Zuckerberg. Big names involved. Board records inspection shows who's who in 'approval' - everyone now gone except Zuckerberg, Andresseen and Alford. Gets interesting quickly... /1 Image
Yes, Andreessen joined Thiel in politics with full-throated endorsement of Trump with close allies. Alford was CFO of Chan Zuckerberg right before approval. WSJ reported Chenault and Zients (important: now Biden's chief of staff) stepped down over disagreements with Mark Z. /2 Image
So what's happening. Well, first in April 2024 all of these prior and current board members were served in the lawsuit. Again, this is based on a prior records inspection of non-privileged board documents and the Court at that point deciding to allow the case to move forward. /3 Image
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(