Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Technology

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

To Defeat FTC Lawsuit, Meta Demands Over 100 Rivals Share Biggest Trade Secrets

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

    • 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

      • by tsqr ( 808554 )

        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!

        • You could even get off your ass and go visit some people in person!

          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?
        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          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

          • by tsqr ( 808554 )

            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.

          • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

            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

            • 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.

            • How does email lack the "coverage" of Facebook.

              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.

              • by shanen ( 462549 )

                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...

              • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

                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

        • It's at times like this I am reminded of the words of a very wise and insightful bundle of purple felt [youtu.be]

      • 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.

        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

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          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

      • "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]

      • 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.

      • 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.

        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

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          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

    • A monopoly on WHAT, exactly?

  • Competitors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @02:37PM (#62878621) Journal

    Facebook has 100 competitors?

  • 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?

    • by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @03:06PM (#62878723) Journal

      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.

      • Every single subpoena will be fought tooth and nail in court.

        This thing will drag on for decades.

        • by PPH ( 736903 )

          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.

  • The FTC is suing Meta for monopolistic practices, their competitors arenâ(TM)t suing them, so they have no right to discovery, confidential info or otherwise. The companies subpoenaed should be able to swat these demands aside. In fact, in the right venues, those companies could use SLAP lawsuits against Meta to recover their cost and more.
    • 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

      • 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.

    • I don't know where you got any of that, but no.

      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
  • by mattaw2001 ( 9712110 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @02:39PM (#62878639)
    https://variety.com/2019/digit... [variety.com]!

    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.

  • by kellin ( 28417 )

    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.

    • 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

    • 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

  • The whole entire show has been a rent-seekers paradise since Commodore Business Machines went down – and we've yet to see an analysis of how exactly that happened any much more satisfactory than "the victims of the St Valentine's Day Massacre succumbed to a severe case of lead poisoning."
    • I don't see what this has to do with Commodore.

      • 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. And if the Federal Trade Commission really cared about fair trade, they would be concerned about that. They would be concerned about how those of us who work at the docks, those of us who don't directly feed off the union payroll, are beginning to feel that the Federal Trade Commission doesn't care about much outside of allowing their legal practices to be weaponised in accord
        • 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.

          • As I understand it, the problem came down to their having failed to appreciate that any kind of a judge might conceivably take the idea that somebody had an active prior claim on a fundamental aspect of early Victorian mathematics seriously.
  • 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 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.

  • by John.Banister ( 1291556 ) * on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @05:02PM (#62879091) Homepage
    The Monopoly Meta has is its existing customer base. If the FTC wants to end the monopoly, instead of breaking apart the company components that do different jobs, just enforce federation so that people aren't required to become Meta customers in order to connect with current Meta customers. Then, Meta will have to be providing customers with better value to attract their business, which is the result that the FTC says they want.
  • by LeeLynx ( 6219816 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2022 @06:35AM (#62880393)
    From the article:

    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.

CChheecckk yyoouurr dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh..

Working...