wow, another order for Mark Zuckerberg to sit for another court deposition. This time in a case involving privacy violations with ingesting web-wide health data. Remember they paid billions in cases to try to avoid this. Data and privacy issues are especially sensitive. /1
Zuckerberg depositions are interesting as they often go on for hours with highly informed attorneys driving for answers. And those answers may be put up against the often questioned veracity of his answers to Congress. Yes, as a CEO, he has testified to Congress A LOT. /2
I think his first real depo was SEC on very sensitive data scandal leading to $5B+ settlements with FTC+SEC. That scandal is still playing out in courts (did he overpay to protect himself?) It took 3yrs to get unsealed after I caught it in a footnote. /3
Most of his depos become an effort to narrow the scope of questions and discovery in advance. Especially around past data scandals. FTC and private antitrust suits in 2023 tricky. But in the last few months this all seems to be cornering him and making it as tricky as ever. /4
And sometimes it's about Meta's future. A good example, Zuckerberg sat for a deposition 12/17/24 right before plaintiffs were able to assemble evidence adding new allegations that Meta was torrenting known pirated data in order to train its AI model (LLaMA) with MZ awareness. /5
But I still believe the DE lawsuit creates the most sensitivity for him. He sat for a very limited depo on alleged overpayments to bury data scandals. Court then ordered him to sit again for multiple days in March 2025. Trial is a few months away. /6
which brings me back to first tweet. Always a big deal when Zuckerberg is ordered to sit and answer questions. Especially around data and privacy. The private lawsuits after Cambridge Analytica were settled when things got too hot. Nearly $1B in settlements. Let's see here. /7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
wow. NdCal just denied Facebook's attempt to dismiss securities suit for Cambridge Analytica cover-up. Court says plaintiffs credibly alleged Zuckerberg and Sandberg knew it "possessed over 40mil user profiles" way earlier. 4th amended complaint added/redacted cited evidence. /1
Count I, II and III now proceed, all alleged (civil) violations of 1934 SEC Act including over $5B in stock sales by Zuckerberg. This is the case Facebook already took up to SCOTUS to be denied cert. In DE, they settled similar case as director Andreessen was set to testify. /2
In this case, the executive defendants are Zuckerberg, Sandberg and CFO Wehner. What is interesting is it's added new evidence squeezed out more recently in courts including Court sanctions against Sandberg for deleting "relevant emails" over a pseudonymous gmail account. /3
Big. A major new law & tech paper takes on the economics of behavioral advertising - the kind that tracks users across multiple businesses and contexts, not just on sites they choose to visit.
It challenges industry’s favorite claim: that tracking is a “win-win” for everyone. /1
Bear with my thread. You may know I've been sharing Google and Meta monopoly abuse concerns for nearly a decade (courts now ruling). That said, I've always said ubiquitous data collection across the web (mostly NOT on the duopoly's own services!) is what fuels their dominance. /2
At the heart of the debate is this Figure 1 - and two very different ways to frame it.
Framing #1 (the industry narrative): Data aka 'signal' -> Better targeting -> More relevant ads -> More revenue -> Free content -> Everyone wins!
Simple. Elegant. But entirely misleading. /3
The 8hr video of Jack Smith’s testimony was released by Congress on New Years’ Eve in between Epstein and Venezuela. It’s an extraordinary display of Smith’s integrity and attention to justice and fairness on 1/6. Allison Gill deserves praise for curating the key clips. 1/4
Smith clearly represents all who worked towards justice and public interest, expressing his confidence and rationale he had the evidence to prove Jan 6th case to a jury. He also shows his gratitude to those retaliated against - in just doing their jobs. This stood out to me. 2/4
I must say I’m impressed by Covington & Burling law firm who has stood strong during this retaliation. This is just 1/6 - they’ve worked with Smith to be cautious to not discuss any confidential details in his classified docs report still sealed by Judge Cannon. (1.3x to fit) 3/4
So many mind blowing sentences in this just incredible Wall Street Journal report. Starting here, “Witkoff, who hasn’t traveled to Ukraine this year, is set to visit Russia for the sixth time next week and will again meet Putin. He insisted he isn’t playing favorites.” /1
“Inside were details of the commercial and
economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.” /2
“European official asked Witkoff to start speaking with allies over the secure fixed line Europe's heads of state use to conduct sensitive
diplomatic conversations. Witkoff demurred, as he traveled too much to use the cumbersome system.” /3
Saturday’s “No Kings” protests have filled front pages across America with impactful visuals and headlines of peaceful protests. Many included the eye popping NYC Times Square shot. Here in the Dothan Eagle (Alabama). But everyone turned out. See Montana in its Missoulian. /1
Plenty of big city energy from St. Louis, Missouri to Chicago, Illinois. /2
Midwest with Cleveland, Ohio to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. /3
US v Google remedies: Nothing groundbreaking from return of DOJ’s star economist this morning. Court tested if his concerns over solely behavioral remedies assume distrust in Google (won’t follow court orders). I don’t think it mattered relative to where we were last night... /1
Yes, some will read as leaning against structural-remedy interest. I took it simply her clarifying she doesn’t need to lean on distrust if structural is shown tech feasible. Although witness pointed out distrust harms competition investment levels. /2
Court also very much nodded head when witness Lee explained why he didn’t do “but for” analysis to a dollar amount. Mehta also determined in search it was infeasible and unnecessary so cross that out of Google’s defense imho. /3