To Defeat FTC Lawsuit, Meta Demands Over 100 Rivals Share Biggest Trade Secrets (arstechnica.com) 55
An anonymous reader shares a report: Several years after Facebook-owner Meta acquired WhatsApp and Instagram, the Federal Trade Commission launched an antitrust lawsuit that claimed that through these acquisitions, Meta had become a monopoly. A titan wielding enormous fortune over smaller companies, the FTC said Meta began buying or burying competitors in efforts that allegedly blocked rivals from offering better-quality products to consumers. In this outsize role, Meta stopped evolving consumer preferences for features like greater privacy options and stronger data protection from becoming the norm, the FTC claimed. The only solution the FTC could see? Ask a federal court to help them break up Meta and undo the damage the FTC did not foresee when it approved Meta's acquisitions initially. To investigate whether Meta truly possesses monopoly power, both Meta and the FTC have subpoenaed more than 100 Meta competitors each. Both hope to clearly define in court how much Meta dominates the market and just how negatively that impacts its competitors.
Through 132 subpoenas so far, Meta is on a mission to defend itself, claiming it needs to gather confidential trade secrets from its biggest competitors -- not to leverage such knowledge and increase its market share, but to demonstrate in court that other companies are able to compete with Meta. According to court documents, Meta's so hungry for this background on its competitors, it says it plans to subpoena more than 100 additional rivals, if needed, to overcome the FTC's claims. Meta is asking its competitors for a wide range of insights, from their best-performing features to names of their biggest advertisers. It wants to see all business receipts, which to its competitors is seemingly turning the antitrust litigation into a business opportunity for Meta to find out precisely how other companies attract users, scale products, and gauge success. Among rivals already subpoenaed are Twitter, TikTok owner ByteDance, Reddit, Pinterest, LinkedIn, and Snap. More requests could be made in the coming years, though, before the discovery for both sides concludes on January 5, 2024.
Through 132 subpoenas so far, Meta is on a mission to defend itself, claiming it needs to gather confidential trade secrets from its biggest competitors -- not to leverage such knowledge and increase its market share, but to demonstrate in court that other companies are able to compete with Meta. According to court documents, Meta's so hungry for this background on its competitors, it says it plans to subpoena more than 100 additional rivals, if needed, to overcome the FTC's claims. Meta is asking its competitors for a wide range of insights, from their best-performing features to names of their biggest advertisers. It wants to see all business receipts, which to its competitors is seemingly turning the antitrust litigation into a business opportunity for Meta to find out precisely how other companies attract users, scale products, and gauge success. Among rivals already subpoenaed are Twitter, TikTok owner ByteDance, Reddit, Pinterest, LinkedIn, and Snap. More requests could be made in the coming years, though, before the discovery for both sides concludes on January 5, 2024.
"Whataboutism" writ large? (Score:2)
Well, not really. But I like the sound of that subject.
Honestly, I don't know that you can defend the idea that Facebook is a monopoly anymore. I think they're terrible for the whole world, and I wish they would go away... but I'd rather hang them on some of their other behaviours than on monopolist tendencies. My fondest hope is that they "Meta" themselves right out of existence.
What about surveillance capitalism? (Score:2)
I think you need to look at monopoly in terms of freedoms lost. (Especially considering how Bork broke monopoly law.) If you want a channel to keep in touch with friends and relatives, then what are your options? From that perspective, Facebook is using the network effect to basically force you to use Facebook or lose touch with some folks. If that isn't an abusive monopoly, then I'm not sure what qualifies.
It might help to look at it in terms of solutions. Well, at least it's my imaginary solution approach
Re: (Score:1)
If you want a channel to keep in touch with friends and relatives, then what are your options?
Uh, how about taking that thing in your hand that you're using to access Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram, and using it instead for the purpose that gave it it's name (hint: it's a TELEPHONE)?
You can also use the same device to send messages using an obscure feature called "EMAIL". Or you could use a video conferencing program like Zoom. You could even get off your ass and go visit some people in person!
Re: (Score:2)
But that would mean getting off their fat ass and, GASP!, going outside. How would they ever manage not looking at a 3 inch screen?
Re: (Score:1)
Your rudeness calls for a simple NAK, but I'll just note that I am aware of and also use those options. They lack the "coverage" of Facebook, but considering such complexities would require you to go beyond your straw man mentality, wouldn't it?
The actual reason to reply is to ignore your empty reply. But I should have included something about my specific and more practical personal solution for the Facebook problem. It's a cheap timer for a 5-minute rule. Even worse than the lack of choice is the waste of
Re: (Score:2)
You posed a simple question, and I gave a simple answer. If you were offended by what you're characterizing as rudeness, I can only suggest that you re-read your own reply to my comment and consider the likelihood that you're a pot calling the kettle black.
Re: (Score:1)
NAK
Re: (Score:2)
How does email lack the "coverage" of Facebook. Literally everyone* has email and not everyone has or uses Facebook. Sure there maybe people that also don't use email but they still have an email account.*
*I suppose you could just access the Internet via hotspots but if you are paying an ISP for Internet access you more likely than not also have an email address supplied by your ISP. You may never use it but they probably issued you one when you signed up. I would be very surprised that your ISP issued you
Re: (Score:2)
You can do a group MMS with your friends and trade pictures and everything. No idea how facebook is required. You can also setup and host your own Mastodon platform if you really want to.
Plus, you don't NEED social media. In fact, probably better if it was banned though I do not really think that would be legal.
Government will likely strip platform protections sooner then later anyway. User generated content probably won't be an option in the future because no host will want to take the risk.
Email and FB are not equivalent (Score:2)
Well, let's see.
Tell your email program to search up someone from high school or college or a previous business relationship you want to reconnect with. See how that goes. Nothing. If they haven't already had emails comms with you, the email program knows nothing about them. Okay, over to the web and use Google, then. If you're lucky, the Google search will most likely turn up their... Facebook page, which, BTW, won't provide you with their email address. Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically concurrence and you described several aspects of the problem quite well, probably better than I can. Yet at the highest level I think the problem is that the rules of the game are broken in favor of the biggest players and against fair competition and innovation. And very much against free choice.
However I admit to being biased towards seeking solutions these years. That's why I think the tax system needs a bit of work...
Re: (Score:2)
What you wrote doesn't show that Facebook has wider "coverage" it just shows that it has better search capabilities.
Companies and healthcare facilities that only have a presence on Facebook are much more limiting than if they are to use email. If you need a Facebook account to interact with your healthcare I think you should maybe find a better healthcare provider (talk about "haves on one side, not-haves on the other").
I wasn't disputing that Facebook is a de facto monopoly just that its "coverage" isn't r
Re: (Score:2)
It's at times like this I am reminded of the words of a very wise and insightful bundle of purple felt [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I've never had a Facebook account, and I have not lost touch with a single friend I have wanted to keep up with over the years.
We generally try to hook up in meatspace to actually hang together when we can..otherwise, there is text (lots of group texts), email, PHONE CALLS, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Your standard for people you "want to keep in touch up" sounds rather rude, and that's based on my own not-so-polite standards. I guess my main reaction is that over time my feelings about old times have somewhat mellowed, and I sometimes wonder what happened to "ol' whas the name".
I'm actually reminded of a search I undertook a few years ago. It involved a group of people I had studied with many years ago. With diligent searching I managed to turn up a few of them, and we sometimes keep in touch since then
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want a channel to keep in touch with friends and relatives, then what are your options? "
There are alternatives. But they do involve you socializing a move to something different amongst those you'd like to contact. If your complaint is that your friends and family don't want to move with you, well... Being preferred is not the same as being a monopoly.
https://www.lifewire.com/best-... [lifewire.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Have you ever heard of the network effect?
Re: What about surveillance capitalism? (Score:2)
Oh give me a break.
Send an email
Start a mailing list
Get a website
Log into IRC
There are tons of way to keep in touch with people without using Facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
NAK.
And then there's access... (Score:2)
Definitely friends and relatives, but not just that. Local governments, health departments, businesses, all have made Facebook their primary or only network-facing instances; if you're not on Facebook — whether be
Re: (Score:2)
I think regulation is a problematic solution. As a Platonic joke: "Who shall regulate those selfsame regulators?" Or a queasy-Biblical joke: "The devil is in the details, and the world is FULL of details."
I don't see any path to the solution approach I favor, but I think the rules of the game should favor freedom over BIG. Dare I say, even over profit maximization über alles? Yes, I do dare say it, because the absolute focus on profit maximization is fundamentally insane. Just one example: Every compan
Re: "Whataboutism" writ large? (Score:2)
A monopoly on WHAT, exactly?
Competitors (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook has 100 competitors?
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook competitor #37 [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook competitor #63. [imgur.com] The subpoena is on its way.
Re: (Score:2)
This one's not a Facebook competitor, technically it's a Linkedin competitor [wisc.edu].
But, Facebook subpoena'd them anyway. #overreach
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you define a "competitor" as any platform where users can interact with each other and generate at least some of the content, which seems to be what they did. In that sense, even Slashdot would be a competitor, if this place was notable enough to get their attention.
No way that could be a problem (Score:2)
Of course, we all trust that Meta has erected a Chinese Wall to separate their legal department from the business development sides of the business.
And if you believe that, how'd you like to but this swamp^Wland I have for sale? It's perfect for future development?
Re:No way that could be a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, we all trust that Meta has erected a Chinese Wall to separate their legal department from the business development sides of the business.
The way you typically handle a problem like this is that only outside counsel has access to the documents in question.
Asks like this are not unprecedented. IIRC, in the SCO v. IBM case, SCO actually subpoenaed (and got(!)) IBM's entire source code repository as part of their fishing expedition for evidence that IBM had actually done anything they claimed (unsurprisingly, they found nothing, since there was nothing to find).
The crazy part here is that the subpoenas are going out to people who are not only not party to the case, but have absolutely no relationship to it other than being in the same line of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single subpoena will be fought tooth and nail in court.
This thing will drag on for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
This thing will drag on for decades.
Perhaps that's Meta's plan. The case can't proceed if all the subpoenas are not complied with. Some parties will fight. Some will be bought out and their new owners will fight. Some will go out of business and the needed evidence will be in a cardboard box in the garage of the widow of the founder.
Screwâ(TM)em (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an ugly part of the US legal system which shouldn't have any bearing in modern law.
"Hey, see this lawsuit over here that has nothing to do with you? Yeah, you are now on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just because..."
The US legal system is all about forcing other people to pay exorbitant legal fees as punishment, even in situations where they haven't done anything wrong, are not a party to the suit etc - don't like that your competitor isn't tied up in a suit you are havin
Re: (Score:2)
It's an ugly part of the US legal system which shouldn't have any bearing in modern law.
Leaving aside all the other problems with that post, I'm terribly curious why you draw that distinction. If anything it is far more likely in a heavily interconnected world that a third party would have some sort of material relevant to a legal matter.
Re: (Score:2)
There are myriad circumstances where a third party has information or records relevant to a court proceeding. People or things can be subpoenaed from them the same as anyone else, the requesting party just has to provide reasonable compensation for the efforts. The alternative would be to either exclude parties from recovering otherwise just damages or, on the other hand, adequately defending themselves from the recovery of unjust damages, based on the whims
Facebook killed tons through lies... (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]
Facebook gave out massive engagement figures, media companies committed to facebook and dropped their existing web teams etc. due to the 60-80% overinflation of engagement numbers. Those lies that got folks fired and stuff shut down, which were never restarted due to cost. That is only one of their many many lies over the years. Please break them up.
âoe damage the FTC did not foresee when it ap (Score:2)
Ah-hahahahahaha
Trump Playbook. (Score:1, Troll)
Sounds like a "trick" Trump or one of his cronies would pull to try to get out of something. It sounds like stalling tactic.. the longer Meta can drag this out... its not as if the FTC is just going to give up.
Re: Trump Playbook. (Score:1)
There is a solution: end government interference in business. The FTC and similar agencies add significant burden to the small businesses and startups that wouldâ(TM)ve been able to compete. This lawsuit alone, in which the FTC is coordinating with Meta against small businesses, is enough to take out some small businesses and probably even some major open source projects.
I donâ(TM)t have Facebook and havenâ(TM)t been forced to use it yet, the only agencies that make it difficult for me to avo
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a "trick" Trump or one of his cronies would pull to try to get out of something. It sounds like stalling tactic.. the longer Meta can drag this out... its not as if the FTC is just going to give up.
Well that's certainly an analysis clouded in TDS a bit. Rather shortsighted, don't you think?
Meta is in the monopoly crosshairs of the FTC. You're right. They won't give up, and that's exactly what Meta is counting on.
Meta will now demand the secret sauce from every possible competitor, in exchange for a small whoops-OK-ya-got-me slap on the wrist fine. Even if the FTC went full Gonzo balls-deep on their ass and forced them to carve up 50% of Meta, you know what they're going to do in response?
Manipula
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's certainly an analysis clouded in TDS a bit.
Oh, good. One of you people.
Like investigating Al Capone for price fixing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what this has to do with Commodore.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing this as an expression of the "somebody fell of da roof" mentality. Commodore did not fall off the roof. They were pushed
I feel like they really kicked themselves in the face.
Re: (Score:1)
Too late (Score:2)
Mark my words, FB is already in a deep decline that they may survive, but in 5 years they will be irrelevant. Govt is wasting taxpayer $ going after Meta. Just like they wasted $ going after Microsoft when it began to falter.
The demand proves FTC is right (Score:2)
The demand shows how big and powerful Meta has become. It is using its bullying power to try to get its way. No small company can do that and would not be taken seriously if they did.
Enforced Federation to end Monopoly (Score:3)
Interesting spin (Score:3)
As Bloomberg reports, as legal challenges to Meta's subpoenas from other social media companies mount, a Meta spokesperson told Ars that all these competitors resisting compliance with subpoenas appears to somewhat substantiate Meta's claims that the industry remains competitive despite Meta's ownership of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
Either that spokesperson is fantastically full of shit, or they have a gross misunderstanding of what 'competitive' means in this context.