7 Comments
User's avatar
hw's avatar

You have a fascinating practical background.

Interesting to see that gravity continues to exist in law, if not in politics.

The "theater of the absurd" that served Zuckerberg so well in Congressional testimony before technologically naive or financially compromised Congresspeople is jarringly ineffective in a court of law.

Expand full comment
Joe Cook's avatar

Great coverage and blow-by-blow! The two faces of business can be seen as the mask comes off. 1) We want market power and dominance. 2) We don’t want to look like we have market power.

Expand full comment
Jed Horovitz's avatar

"Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes"....Chico Marx

Expand full comment
Rob Shouting Into The Void's avatar

then referred Apple and one of its executives to the United States Attorney’s office for potential criminal prosecution.

Perhaps you could do an update on this sometime (assuming I didn't miss it)

Expand full comment
Chris Duncan's avatar

Excellent summary.. and you're right no Head of Research ever just let something go into the Board pack that they had the slightest doubt about...

Expand full comment
Franca Beanfriend's avatar

super analysis and clear writing

thank you

its looking like the government will win

if so, does that mean meta will negotiate down the $30 billion the government wants to settle and get to keep instagram?

where did that $30 billion settlement number come from?

instagram and whatsapp are together worth $650 billion.

and why does meta get to keep any of it or receive any more money than they paid for both?

Expand full comment
Brendan Benedict's avatar

I discuss this at greater length on the Organized Money podcast, co-hosted by our own Matt Stoller: https://youtu.be/5ZWko7QW-gQ?si=XcAG9a9ZT2C1DqQd

I'm in court so can't give you the precise timestamp, but Matt asked me about the WSJ-reported $30 billion demand. My short answer is that I don't know where the FTC is claiming it has the authority to impose a fine like that - maybe it's a civil penalty, rather than something called disgorgement, which the Supreme Court said a few years ago that the FTC can't recover. And it's also concerning that the government is primarily negotiating over money. We don't know from the report what was in the government's proposed consent decree, but the focus didn't seem to be on breaking up Meta. That raises a concern for me that this is shakedown driven by the desire to punish Meta for its "censorship" of President Trump and other conservative views. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has spoken a LOT about "censorship" of dissenting views on masks during the pandemic, etc. But for my money, if Meta's acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram broke the law, they should be spun out, and money is secondary if it's recoverable at all here.

Expand full comment