Woah. Lawsuit against Facebook for overpaying $5b+ to FTC and SEC to limit Zuckerberg’s exposure from its cover-up around Cambridge Analytica just took an interesting twist with allegations Sheryl Sandberg was using and purging a separate Gmail account for sensitive matters. /1
This is in a sanctions motion just unsealed against her and another board member (now Biden Chief of Staff). The Delaware lawsuit is brought by pension funds now deposing a number of the board members after a records inspection allowed for a derivative lawsuit. /2
It appears that the evidence of the spoliation comes from emails showing up on the other end of the communications during discovery. This is how Google’s own spoliation issues surfaced (worth noting Facebook’s Sandberg and Schrage both worked at Google so…) /3
The allegations in the motion are that Sandberg used a pseudonym account on Gmail and those are the emails which were set to automatically delete. /4
If you recall in March 2018, the entire world finally really found out what Facebook had been denying and deflecting and covering up for years, so safe to say the litigation holds were incredibly clear to Facebook and its directors. /5
In fact, the motion states they were communicated only a few months later. /6
The bullets of what allegedly Sandberg used the other email account to communicate on are mind blowing. This is investigations that created personal legal risk to the leadership and potentially could bring down the entire company for a massive cover-up. /7
More here. /8
Here is what I said before this sanctions motion unsealed. Worth noting @BarbMcQuade flagged the SCOTUS matter of interest on her pod this morning. I’m not sure she’s aware of the massive Kavanaugh conflict or the cover-up specifics but the case still caught her attention. /9
Oh come on, Alex Heath. It's one thing to let Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spread misleading history as part of your getting access and an exclusive interview but it's another thing to do it for him. You stated this for him rather than fact-checking on what actually happened? /1
I don't even know what you're talking about here. Google wrote a check for a few million to DOJ to eliminate the claim allowing for a jury. The case wasn't settled, it's literally wrapping up this week. It was Facebook who has paid more than $5B in settlements to the govt. /2
On those $5B+ in settlements, they were due to what you're helping him rewrite history. Literally THIS WEEK, 3 cases moved in DE Chancery, DC Appeals and the freaking US Supreme Court. Facebook WROTE THIS to SCOTUS who granted cert in 9th circuit case day after Nov elections. /3
Woah. Fun. Buried in DOJ adtech antitrust exhibits posted overnight is a highly sensitive summary of Google's monitoring and spinning of the DOJ's search antitrust complaint in 2020 - yes, the landmark case the US DOJ just won. Keep this in mind as you read my thread. /1
Ingredients: a project code-name -> 'BeeGee,' 'fake privilege' as one of Google's legal eagles has called it only to be scorched by Courts, and a Google blog post (AKA PR spin) dutifully shared by influencers and press which is Google's key goal (Facebook does this, too). /2
At the top of the wins is getting the WSJ Editorial Board to weigh in. Google accomplished this with a "deft" briefing by its chief legal officer, Kent Walker. Google also noting many of its blog spin arguments were used verbatim. Yeaaaay Google PR team. /3
just found some eye-popping stuff in google discovery under the examples of substantive chats (not deleted). you ready? it's between two key VPs (33+yrs collectively working at Google) and strikes at the intersection of privacy and antitrust as they began cookie deprecation. /1
All yellow highlights are mine. I am going to attempt to translate what is going on here based on my knowledge of all context around this chat and having reviewed and studied the company closely over the years. Correct me on anything you think I've got wrong please. /2
We know from prior reports, when Google announced 3rd party cookie deprecation, it also dropped super low quality methodology research (for G) that this would drop publishers' ad revenues by 52%. It appears they hoped this would cause "chrome to do something different." /3
Day 3: USvGoogle. Wow. “Google imposed debt on publishers” in damning evidence. After opening day with evasive top Google exec who ran adtech for both sides of market (but said “I believe so” to header bidding happening and AdX having 20% take rate), fireworks with DOJ expert. /1
Impressive DOJ expert Dr. Ravi systematically walked through conduct that had the interest conflicts lights blinking like fire alarms in Court. First, he testified 53% of Google's wins in auction were due to "First Look" (basically jumping in line to block) in Google's AdX. /2
We saw an email exhibit explaining to leadership that "launching AdX into non-DFP servers destroys G's advantage leading to AdX losing access to overall queries with less valuable inventory begetting lower CPMs causing pubs to decrease G's access to their inventory. WTF. /3
And so it begins. Tomorrow. US vs Google 2 antitrust trial. Google has had at least three off record briefings for press in the last month and just now posted its own propaganda blog post which no reporter should share the raw link without proper context. Just report on it. /1
Google also posted its version of our adtech explainer. DCN focused on today and tomorrow but didn’t directly mention Google (only its conflicts of interest). Google focuses on today vs newspapers and takes credit for the web…as it likes to.
DCN on left, Google on right. /2
Like I said with Search after reading that complaint and knowing the business history, Google is screwed with adtech, too. DOJ and its attorneys did their homework, they know their stuff after years of study and discovery. I’m looking forward to the next four weeks. /3
Motions hearing over. As expected, Google, and its Chief Legal Officer, Kent Walker, had an incredibly bad day as Court heard arguments over its abuse of privilege in the USA v Google adtech pre-trial motion. Scorched (imho) from the bench, “a very big problem for Google” /1
Since it’s no longer a trial, Court noted it wasn’t necessary to rule today but she made crystal clear, quotes as I captured them, “I’m comfortable saying this is not the way a respected corporate entity should function. A clear abuse of privilege.” /2
She said Google’s actions were “absolutely inappropriate and not proper” and said as each witness goes to the stand in trial, “I WILL DRAW INFERENCES.” and “will take into consideration as you call witnesses.” /3