The two-week trial in New Mexico centered on accusations Facebook deceived users about a data breach.

423 points•pseudolus•5 days ago•107 comments•

107 comments

ElProlactin5 days ago
> Meta agreed in August to pay up to $18 billion to settle the multistate lawsuit surrounding child safety issues. Buried in the 130-page settlement was an agreement to release Meta from future liability related to the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach, making New Mexico the only state to pursue a case. Florida was the only other state that did not sign the settlement, saying it was not tough enough on Meta.

This is an inconvenient reminder for people who want more "regulation" and who believe states with high levels of paper regulation like California really care about protecting consumers.

Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs working on the other side.

tzs4 days ago
The multi-state settlement was a huge loss for Meta.

You are focusing on the money, which is not the important part. The important part is that the settlement just settled that one lawsuit. There are many thousands of individual lawsuits over many of the same issues, mostly by local governments (school districts).

Almost all the work the nearly 50 states in the multi-state lawsuit put in to prepare their case, such as depositions, getting expert reports, their successful legal arguments, the testimony from the trial, etc can be used by the plaintiffs in all those other suits.

This basically gives all those plaintiffs a fully loaded giant legal cannon that was custom built using the vast resources of the Attorney General's offices of almost 50 states specifically as an anti-Meta weapon.

BobbyTables24 days ago
Why do you have to get our hopes up? (:->
amelius4 days ago
Stop framing bad regulation as a case against good regulation.
specialist4 days ago
Yes and: Regulation is just a scary word for rules.
keeda4 days ago
I think the Cambridge Analytica scandal was a big deal, and even used it to reinforce and reprioritize some privacy-focused initiatives at a past job. But I heard some credible voices on social media say that the actual impact was negligible. Anyone know what they mean? Maybe that has some bearing here?
noisy_boy5 days ago
How is this:

> people who want more "regulation"

Same as this:

> who believe states with high levels of paper regulation

I _do_ want real regulations with teeth against shitty companies like Meta. Just because California has done a performative take doesn't make expecting more controls on these scumbags a wrong thing to expect. Bad execution doesn't make the idea wrong, your scare-quotes be damned.

alex11385 days ago
I wish HN was more of a reliable aggregator and not just people protecting their industry at all cost

You can reliably tell what the most upvoted comments will be

Does that mean we should always hate on big tech? No. If a platform is getting unfairly targeted, that's nice to know. But you come here to get the general sense of the landscape and the first comment is always slanted in favor of big corporate

JumpCrisscross5 days ago
> Bad execution doesn't make the idea wrong

It does raise the question of the value of California’s bureaucratic burden.

amelius4 days ago
Net neutrality is also a form of regulation. Are you against it?
NewJazz5 days ago
This was 10 years ago. Pretty crazy that this is finally seeing the justice system.
asciii5 days ago
Reminds me of that FOIA request a guy filed when he had his kid and did not receive reply/confirmation until his kid was in college...
Jemm5 days ago
Prolong is a legal tactic
alex11385 days ago
But judge! We can't be a monopoly ["Quickly... delete all instances of 'Instagram can hurt us' emails..."]. Email exists. Mouths exist, people can communicate without using Facebook...

(Yeah, 'Book. We know email exists. You apparently don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433)

ThePhysicist5 days ago
Move fast and break t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ the law. Because the law moves very slowly.
Loughla5 days ago
I genuinely thought that was the baseline assumption in that statement.

Uber only exists because it ignored taxi regulations long enough to be too big to kill, right?

mitxela5 days ago
And by the clever move of pitching itself as ride sharing between casual users, don't forget. If they were offering "call a taxi" from the start, the outcome may have been very different. People still say "call an Uber" and not "call a taxi with Uber".
sedan_baklazhan5 days ago
We'll probably see similar decisions on misbehavings of major LLM companies ~2036, when it won't matter anymore.
zx80805 days ago
10-years old ago thing? Yeah, so fast. And what exactly will the settlement money go to?
TJSomething5 days ago
Probably to similar purposes as the 2024 opioid settlement: housing assistance, schools, subsidized child care. Legislators will probably try to align it with goals that seem like they would counter the stuff Meta's doing. Smaller communities will probably fail to allocate it promptly.
zelphirkalt5 days ago
I am sure instead of more bombs, missiles and other military stuff, they will invest it into the public good, education for citizens, and infrastructure. No one will line their pockets. Not in the US. No, no, they will use that money to make things better. for all the people abused by tech giants. I am so sure of it.
mitxela5 days ago
Is the USA even still producing bombs and missiles? Last I heard it's completely ineffective due to all the corruption (same as Russia's problem).

Read the full thread on Hacker News →

Related stories