{"id":251611,"date":"2022-01-13T14:12:00","date_gmt":"2022-01-13T14:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/?p=251611"},"modified":"2024-01-05T19:23:29","modified_gmt":"2024-01-05T19:23:29","slug":"the-ftcs-second-try-at-an-antitrust-case-against-facebook-gets-the-green-light","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2022\/01\/13\/the-ftcs-second-try-at-an-antitrust-case-against-facebook-gets-the-green-light\/","title":{"rendered":"The FTC’s second try at an antitrust case against Facebook gets the green light"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Last June, James Boasberg, a judge with U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, threw out an antitrust case that was filed by the Federal Trade Commission against Facebook<\/a> (which has since changed its corporate name to Meta). The lawsuit alleged that the company has an illegal monopoly on social networking services, that it built this monopoly in part by acquiring competing services such as WhatsApp and Instagram, and that it uses its monopoly position in an anti-competitive way against other companies. In his dismissal of the case, Boasberg said that the federal regulator had failed<\/a> to provide enough tangible evidence that Facebook had anything approaching a monopoly over a discrete market segment known as social networking (a similar antitrust lawsuit filed by 40 state attorneys-general was also dismissed by Boesberg last June<\/a>, but the states have not yet filed an appeal).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judge left the door open for the FTC, however, telling the agency it was welcome to try again, if and when it accumulated the evidence<\/a> he sought. On Tuesday, Boasberg ruled that the majority of a new FTC lawsuit can proceed, based on evidence of a monopoly position provided by the agency in its revised submission. The judge said the FTC’s first attempt at a lawsuit<\/a> “stumbled out of the starting blocks,” but that the facts provided by the agency this time were “far more robust and detailed than before, particularly in regard to the contours of defendant\u2019s alleged monopoly.\u201d Boasberg blocked another part of the case<\/a>, which alleged that Facebook harmed competitors by illegally restricting access to its platform\u2014he said Facebook “abandoned the policies in 2018, and its last alleged enforcement was even further in the past. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although some critics of the FTC’s case, including technology analyst Ben Thompson<\/a>, have questioned<\/a> the accuracy of the agency’s attempts to define a specific market for “personal social networking” over which Facebook allegedly has a monopoly, Boasberg found no fault with this market definition. In his first ruling, he said that<\/a> “while there are certainly bones one could pick with the FTC’s market-definition allegations, the Court does not find them fatally devoid of meat.” In terms of whether Facebook has anything approaching a monopoly, the judge seemed to be convinced in his latest decision by the addition<\/a> of data from Comscore, a traffic measurement company, which said “Facebook’s share of DAUs [daily average users] of apps providing personal social networking services in the United States has exceeded 70 percent since 2016.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note<\/strong>: This was\u00a0originally published as<\/a>\u00a0the daily newsletter for the Columbia Journalism Review, where I am the chief digital writer<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

As for the FTC’s argument that acquiring Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014 were illegal attempts to protect its monopoly position, Boasberg said that while he wasn’t prepared to accept the argument as true, he was willing to let it proceed to trial.<\/a> \u201cThe agency will need to substantiate these allegations at later stages in the litigation\u2014likely with expert testimony or statistical analysis,\u201d the judge said in his decision<\/a>. \u201cBut lack of proof at this juncture does not equate to impermissible speculation.\u201d In its defense against the FTC’s claims, Facebook argued that Comscore’s figures on market share are not accurate and therefore can’t be relied upon, but Boasberg said that the company<\/a> “will be given ample opportunity to advance such arguments down the line, perhaps in a potential ‘battle of the experts.'”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its motion to dismiss the FTC’s case, Facebook also argued that chairwoman Lina Khan<\/a> had an “axe to grind” against the company, based on comments she made before she was named to the FTC position, including when she worked for the Open Markets Institute. Facebook had earlier petitioned the federal agency asking Khan to recuse herself<\/a> from the antitrust case against it because of these comments. Boasberg said in his most recent ruling that this new arrow in Facebook’s lineup of ammunition “misses its target,” since the judge said Khan was acting<\/a> in a prosecutorial capacity when she made her earlier comments, not a judicial one. Facebook has also argued that because the FTC approved (or rather, didn’t raise objections to) its purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp, it shouldn’t be allowed to complain<\/a> about them now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Whether the FTC will be able to prove its case and prevail at summary judgment and trial is anyone\u2019s guess,” Boesberg wrote<\/a>. “The Court declines to engage in such speculation and simply concludes that at this motion-to-dismiss stage, where the FTC\u2019s allegations are treated as true, the agency has stated a plausible claim for relief.” The judge added that while the regulatory agency “may well face a tall task down the road in proving its allegations, the court believes that it has now cleared the pleading bar and may proceed to discovery.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below, more on Facebook:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data access<\/strong>: I did a “slow interview” recently with Nate Persily on CJR’s Galley discussion platform. Persily is a law professor at Stanford and co-director of the Stanford Project on Democracy and the Internet, and a former co-founder and co-chair of Social Science One, a partnership between researchers and Facebook that was designed to make it easier for social scientists to get access to data from the company. Persily talked about why he quit that project, and about the proposed legislation<\/a> he helped craft that would force companies like Facebook and Google to give researchers access to their data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not a utility?<\/strong> A number of antitrust scholars have argued that Facebook should be regulated as a utility, but Os Keyes, a PhD candidate at the University of Washington argues that this is easier said than done<\/a>, since utilities typically don’t serve billions of people in hundreds of countries around the world. “The bigger issue is that treating Facebook as a public utility requires not only answering the question of whether it\u2019s a utility but which ‘public’ it should be accountable to\u2014and that\u2019s a much more difficult problem,” they write.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scrutiny<\/strong>: Meta, Facebook’s parent company, fell by more than 35 spots on an annual ranking<\/a> of best places to work in the US, as measured by a company called Glassdoor, CNBC reported<\/a>. Previously in 11th place, the social platform dropped to 47th place, the lowest it has ever been in the 12 years it has been part of the rankings. “Glassdoor said employees spoke highly of the company for granting them autonomy in their work,” CNBC reported, “but many also described negative issues like unwanted public scrutiny, lack of action from leadership on platform issues and questions about the company\u2019s future.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Definitions<\/strong>: Facebook has removed ads for a breastfeeding workshop, pants designed for postpartum mothers, and educational materials about sexual consent, all of which were mistakenly identified as “adult sexual content,” according to a report from the Center for Intimacy Justice, as reported by the New York Times<\/em><\/a>. The organization\u2019s founder interviewed employees and leaders at more than 35 companies focused on issues related to women\u2019s sexual health, and found that “all 60 companies had ads rejected by Facebook, and about half of them said their accounts had been suspended at some point.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other notable stories<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evan Smith said Wednesday that he is stepping down as chief executive of The Texas Tribune<\/em>, a nonprofit news organization he co-founded and has led for 13 years, the New York Times<\/em> reported<\/a>. Smith, who is 55, said he will leave the company by the end of the year, but will stay on as an adviser into 2023. Smith said he had no firm plans for what he wanted to do next, but told the Times<\/em>: “I don\u2019t think I\u2019m done wanting to make the world better through journalism.\u201d Smith founded the Tribune <\/em>in 2009 with John Thornton, a venture capitalist, and Ross Ramsey, a journalist and media entrepreneur. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Bauman, a former foreign correspondent for ABC News, and Laura McGann, a former editorial director at Vox<\/em>, on Wednesday launched a news startup called Grid<\/em><\/a>. Bauman, who has also worked at National Geographic<\/em> magazine and the Smithsonian Institution, told the New York Times<\/em> that he started the site because he was frustrated with the coverage of important issues<\/a>. Bauman started the project in August of 2020, and has raised about $10 million in funding from Abu Dhabi-based International Media Investments and Brian Edelman, a tech executive. The startup has hired a team of about 20 journalists, including editor-at-large Matt Yglesias, a co-founder of Vox<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Protocol <\/em>profiles Nandini Jammi, one of the founders of the non-profit Check My Ads Institute, which is dedicated to confronting advertisers whose products finance right-wing disinformation<\/a>. Jammi co-founded Sleeping Giants, which started as a Twitter account with much the same mission. “Her latest venture, the nonprofit Check My Ads Institute, which she co-founded with former marketer Claire Atkin last year, is taking aim not at advertisers but ad exchanges, which hold most of the power in determining where ads actually show up on the internet,” Issie Lapowsky writes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Associated Press announced<\/a> that it plans to sell NFTs (non-fungible cryptocurrency tokens) of its photojournalists\u2019 work in collaboration with a company called Xooa, the Verge <\/em>reports<\/a>. The wire service said that it sees NFTs as a way for collectors to “purchase the news agency\u2019s award-winning contemporary and historic photojournalism\u201d and that the virtual tokens will be released at \u201cbroad and inclusive price points.\u201d Other media organizations have experimented with NFTs, including Quartz<\/em><\/a> and The New York Times<\/em><\/a>. Meanwhile, Dirt, a newsletter on the entertainment industry that is published by Kyle Chayka and Daisy Alioto, has launched a DAO<\/a> or “distributed autonomous organization” that will be funded and controlled by members who own Dirt NFTs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rise of more and more paywalled news sites is going to have a negative impact on society, some media analysts say, according to a report from Axios<\/a>. Rodney Benson, chair of NYU’s Department of Media, Culture, and Communication said that “obviously, long-term, this is going to have tremendously negative civic effects,” which he said we are already experiencing. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and founder of Factcheck.org, said that paywalls are a natural response to revenue demands, but “the problem is that we can’t have so much behind paywalls, that the public can’t afford to break through.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“More than 80 fact-checking organizations from around the world have written an open letter to Susan Wojcicki<\/a>, the chief executive of YouTube, in which they complain that the video-sharing site, which is owned by Google, is not taking effective steps to stop the spread of misinformation on its platform. “YouTube is allowing its platform to be weaponized by unscrupulous actors to manipulate and exploit others, and to organize and fundraise themselves,” the letter says. It urges the company to “elaborate a roadmap of policy and product interventions to improve the information ecosystem.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kirstin McCudden of the Freedom of the Press Foundation writes in CJR about press freedom violations in the US last year,<\/a> as catalogued by the foundation in its annual Press Freedom Tracker. “While we did not see the scope of national social-justice protests<\/a> of 2020\u2014a year in which journalists were arrested or assaulted on average more than once a day\u20142021 still outpaced the years before it for press-freedom violations,” she writes. “More than 140 assaults of journalists in 2021 captured in our \u201cPhysical Attack\u201d category outpaces assaults from 2017 to 2019 combined<\/em>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

David Jordan, the BBC\u2019s director of editorial policy, told the British parliament that he believes<\/a> the broadcaster should \u201crepresent all points of view,\u201d including the view that the Earth is flat. \u201cWe are very committed to ensuring that viewpoints are heard from all different sorts of perspectives and we don\u2019t subscribe to the \u2018cancel culture\u2019 that some groups would put forward,\u201d he said, according to a BBC report<\/a>. \u201cFlat-earthers are not going to get as much space as people who believe the Earth is round, but very occasionally it might be appropriate to interview a flat-earther,” he added.<\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last June, James Boasberg, a judge with U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, threw out an antitrust case that was filed by the Federal Trade Commission against Facebook (which has since changed its corporate name to Meta). The lawsuit alleged that the company has an illegal monopoly on social networking services, that it … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The FTC’s second try at an antitrust case against Facebook gets the green light”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crsspst_to_mathewingramblogwordpresscom":false,"mf2_syndication":[],"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-newsletters"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251611","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=251611"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251611\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":258132,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251611\/revisions\/258132"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}