The allegation here vis-a-vis Facebook is explosive. I don't know if it's true.
The argument is that Mark Zuckerberg was using his control of data and violating the 2011 consent order to ensure that Facebook could transition its desktop social networking monopoly to mobile. That's why Cambridge Analytica happened.
It's hard to remember now since everyone assumes Facebook was a rocket ship from the beginning. But there was a real moment of utter panic from 2011-2013 as the mobile space took off. Was Facebook for real? Or was it another MySpace?
In Q1 of this year, Facebook made roughly 90% of its ad money from mobile, or about $10B. In 2011 it was 0% of revenue.
The argument is that Zuckerberg used access to Facebook's social graph to force companies who needed access to Facebook's platform to buy mobile advertising. He couldn't comply with the 2011 consent order because then his lever to do this would be gone. 
The internal point person tasked with enforcing the decree now a whistleblower (he's on twitter at @mixblendr). Sandy says that in 2011 senior FB execs knew of the privacy violations and he was warned not to look into it. All about the 2012 IPO. theguardian.com/technology/201…
Ex-FTC official David Vladeck, who wrote the consent decree, believes FB is venal. "All of FB’s actions were calculated and deliberate, integral to the company’s business model, and at odds with the company’s claims about privacy and its corporate values." blog.harvardlawreview.org/facebook-cambr…
Again, I don't know if the monopolizing scheme vis-a-vis mobile is true. It seems plausible, it also could be not so calculated. Many of the depositions are under seal. But Facebook knowingly violated the 2011 consent decree and there's an investigation ongoing.
This second story on the suit alleges Facebook was accessing user text messages and activating Bluetooth, both without user consent. theguardian.com/technology/201…
