Meta investors settle $8b lawsuit with Zuckerberg over Facebook privacy
The settlement was announced on Thursday by a lawyer for the shareholders. The parties did not disclose how much they agreed to settle for nor on what terms.
Judge Kathaleen McCormick adjourned the trial just as it was to enter its second day in a Delaware court and congratulated the parties.
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Sam Closic, said the agreement just came together quickly.
Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, a defendant in the trial and a Meta director, was scheduled to testify on Thursday.
Shareholders of Meta sued Mr Zuckerberg, Mr Andreessen and other former company officials — including former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg — in hopes of holding them liable for billions of dollars in fines and legal costs the company paid in recent years.
The Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $US5 billion in 2019 after finding it failed to comply with a 2012 agreement with the regulator to protect users' data.
The shareholders wanted the 11 defendants to use their personal wealth to reimburse the company. The defendants denied the allegations, which they called "extreme claims".
Facebook changed its name to Meta in 2021. The company was not a defendant and declined to comment.
On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019.
A lawyer for the defendants declined to comment.
"This settlement may bring relief to the parties involved, but it's a missed opportunity for public accountability," said Jason Kint, the head of Digital Content Next, a trade group for content providers.
Mr Zuckerberg was expected to take the stand on Monday and Ms Sandberg on Wednesday. The trial was scheduled to run through the end of next week.
The case was also expected to include testimony from former Facebook board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix.
By settling, Mr Zuckerberg and other defendants avoid having to answer probing questions under oath.
Ms Sandberg was found during the litigation to have deleted what were likely her most sensitive emails and she was sanctioned, making it harder for her to tell her side of the story in court.
The settlement allows plaintiffs to avoid trying a very difficult case.
Meta investors alleged that former and current board members completely failed to oversee the company's compliance with the 2012 FTC agreement.
The lawsuit also claimed that Mr Zuckerberg and Ms Sandberg knowingly ran Facebook as an illegal data harvesting operation.
The oversight allegations are known as Caremark claims, considered the most difficult to prove under Delaware corporate law.
It was the first time Caremark claims went to trial, and even if the plaintiffs had gotten a judgement in their favour, the case would have been appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
That court has reversed major shareholder victories in recent years.
The case followed revelations that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump's successful US presidential campaign in 2016.
Those revelations led to the FTC fine, which was a record at the time.
On Wednesday, an expert witness for the plaintiffs testified about what he called "gaps and weaknesses" in Facebook's privacy policies but would not say if the company violated the 2012 agreement that Facebook reached with the FTC.
Jeffrey Zients, a former board member, testified on Wednesday that the company did not agree to the FTC fine to spare Mr Zuckerberg legal liability, as shareholders alleged.
The defendants' legal team also showed the court notes that Mr Zients had taken when he was on the board that seemed to show he was urging the board to make user privacy a top priority, which would undercut plaintiffs' claims.
The trial settlement marks the second time Mr Zuckerberg avoided testifying in the court.
In 2017, Facebook abandoned a plan to issue a new class of stock as a way for Mr Zuckerberg to extend his control over the company while selling his shares.
The decision came a week before Mr Zuckerberg was expected to testify in the Court of Chancery to defend the stock plan.
"Facebook has successfully remade the Cambridge Analytica scandal about a few bad actors rather than an unravelling of its entire business model of surveillance capitalism and the reciprocal, unbridled sharing of personal data," Mr Kint said.
"That reckoning is now left unresolved."
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Telegraph
an hour ago
- Daily Telegraph
Mark Zuckerberg expands on Hawaii compound, sparking concerns among locals
Don't miss out on the headlines from World. Followed categories will be added to My News. Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly expanded his sprawling $300 million (AU$460.2m) compound in Hawaii by nearly 1,000 acres — stoking yet more controversy with locals on the idyllic Pacific island chain, according to a report. The latest expansion on the Meta CEO's massive estate on the Hawaiian island of Kauai includes 962 acres of ranch land purchased earlier this year under an LLC, according to the tech news site WIRED. A person close to the sale estimated the purchase price at more than $65 million (AU$99.7m). The acquisition brings Zuckerberg's total holdings on Kauai to more than 2,300 acres. Property records place the land's market value at around $75 million (AU$115m). Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly expanded his massive estate on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. Picture: AP Inside the existing compound, Zuckerberg has constructed two mansions with a combined floor area comparable to a football field, a gym, a tennis court, several guesthouses, ranch buildings, saucer-shaped tree houses, a water system and a tunnel leading to an underground storm shelter about the size of an NBA basketball court, outfitted with blast-resistant doors and an escape hatch. Recent planning documents released through public records show plans for three more large buildings, ranging from 726 to 1036 square metres — nearly 10 times the size of the average home in Hawaii. Two of them include 16 bedrooms and 16 bathrooms between them, arranged in a motel-style layout, with a shared veranda spanning more than 120 square metres. Each building features cameras, keypad locks and motion detection devices. Hoffine Barr described the buildings as short-term guest housing for family, friends and staff. Satellite images show dozens of buildings on the property that have not yet appeared in public records. Based on bedroom counts in the documents WIRED reviewed, the compound could eventually accommodate more than 100 people. Zuckerberg's expansion reportedly includes land containing a Native Hawaiian burial site. Picture: Getty The seller was the Mary Lucas Trust Estate, whose lands were previously leased to sugar plantations and later restored for cattle grazing. Zuckerberg's spokesman Brandi Hoffine Barr confirmed the purchase to WIRED but did not comment on the size or price. 'Mark and Priscilla continue to make a home for their family and grow their ranching, farming, and conservation efforts at Koʻolau Ranch,' said Hoffine Barr. 'The vast majority of the land is dedicated to agriculture — including cattle ranching, organic ginger, macadamia nut, and turmeric farming, native plant restoration, and endangered species protection. After purchasing the ranch, they cancelled the previous owner's plans for 80 luxury homes.' The couple's investment now exceeds the $311 million (AU$477m) fiscal year 2024 operating budget for the island of Kauai. A local islander who fished in the area contacted Zuckerberg's representatives around 10 years ago to inform them that part of the compound housed the remains of his great-grandmother and her brother, according to the report. Julian Ako negotiated with Zuckerberg's team for months before finally being able to gain access to the burial site and register the graves with Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources. The latest expansion includes 962 acres of ranchland purchased earlier this year. Picture: Getty According to WIRED, Ako tried unsuccessfully to locate the remains of other ancestor that may be buried on Zuckerberg's property. Hawaiian officials told WIRED that they confirmed 'the probability (based on oral testimony) of additional burial sites.' The burial site, first identified in 2015, was 'fenced off and maintained' after being discovered, Hoffine Barr told the publication. She added that workers are 'bound by regulations that require reporting of inadvertent discoveries of iwi' — or Hawaiian ancestral bones. But because workers on the project are bound by strict nondisclosure agreements, local residents fear that any future discovery of iwi could be concealed. 'If all of the workers have signed these nondisclosure agreements, then basically they're sworn to silence,' Ako told WIRED. 'If they uncover iwi — or bones — it's going to be a challenge for that to ever become public knowledge, because they're putting their jobs in jeopardy.' Zuckerberg began buying land on Kauai in 2014, acquiring 700 acres near the town of Kilauea for roughly $100 million (AU$153m). The purchase included parcels where hundreds of local residents held kuleana rights — traditional Hawaiian legal entitlements whereby descendants of original Native Hawaiian landowners can claim ancestral lands. In 2016, Zuckerberg filed 'quiet title and partition' lawsuits against those residents to clarify ownership. He later dropped the suits after public backlash, but the legal process continued under kuleana descendant Carlos Andrade, who eventually won sole ownership of the land at auction. Locals on the Hawaiian island of Kauai have expressed concern about Zuckerberg's aggressive purchase of land. Picture: Getty Images In a 2017 op-ed, Zuckerberg wrote that Andrade, who died in 2022, could 'continue his quiet title action and pass down the kuleana rights because he had lived on and cared for these lands for more than 40 years.' By spring 2021, Zuckerberg added more than 560 acres of ranchland, some of it abutting Larsen's Beach. Later that year, he purchased another 110 acres, including the Kaloko Dam, an earthen reservoir that collapsed in 2006, killing seven people. Zuckerberg's presence on the island has drawn both support and scepticism. He has donated millions to local non-profits, including a charter school and an affordable housing organisation near the compound. His projects have also created well-paying jobs. But many locals remain uneasy about the influence of billionaires on the island's future. 'If our island has any hope of remaining Hawaii, this kind of activity has got to stop,' Puali'i Rossi, a professor of Native Hawaiian studies at Kauai Community College, told WIRED. 'Eventually Hawaii isn't going to look like Hawaii anymore — it's going to be a resort community. Are we really thinking about 100 years from now, what this island is going to look like?' The Post has sought comment from Ako and the Department of Land and Natural Resources. This article originally appeared in New York Post and was reproduced with permission Originally published as Mark Zuckerberg expands on Hawaii compound, sparking concerns among locals
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
Mark Zuckerberg expands on Hawaii compound, sparking concerns among locals
Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly expanded his sprawling $300 million (AU$460.2m) compound in Hawaii by nearly 1,000 acres — stoking yet more controversy with locals on the idyllic Pacific island chain, according to a report. The latest expansion on the Meta CEO's massive estate on the Hawaiian island of Kauai includes 962 acres of ranch land purchased earlier this year under an LLC, according to the tech news site WIRED. A person close to the sale estimated the purchase price at more than $65 million (AU$99.7m). The acquisition brings Zuckerberg's total holdings on Kauai to more than 2,300 acres. Property records place the land's market value at around $75 million (AU$115m). Inside the existing compound, Zuckerberg has constructed two mansions with a combined floor area comparable to a football field, a gym, a tennis court, several guesthouses, ranch buildings, saucer-shaped tree houses, a water system and a tunnel leading to an underground storm shelter about the size of an NBA basketball court, outfitted with blast-resistant doors and an escape hatch. Recent planning documents released through public records show plans for three more large buildings, ranging from 726 to 1036 square metres — nearly 10 times the size of the average home in Hawaii. Two of them include 16 bedrooms and 16 bathrooms between them, arranged in a motel-style layout, with a shared veranda spanning more than 120 square metres. Each building features cameras, keypad locks and motion detection devices. Hoffine Barr described the buildings as short-term guest housing for family, friends and staff. Satellite images show dozens of buildings on the property that have not yet appeared in public records. Based on bedroom counts in the documents WIRED reviewed, the compound could eventually accommodate more than 100 people. The seller was the Mary Lucas Trust Estate, whose lands were previously leased to sugar plantations and later restored for cattle grazing. Zuckerberg's spokesman Brandi Hoffine Barr confirmed the purchase to WIRED but did not comment on the size or price. 'Mark and Priscilla continue to make a home for their family and grow their ranching, farming, and conservation efforts at KoÊ»olau Ranch,' said Hoffine Barr. 'The vast majority of the land is dedicated to agriculture — including cattle ranching, organic ginger, macadamia nut, and turmeric farming, native plant restoration, and endangered species protection. After purchasing the ranch, they cancelled the previous owner's plans for 80 luxury homes.' The couple's investment now exceeds the $311 million (AU$477m) fiscal year 2024 operating budget for the island of Kauai. A local islander who fished in the area contacted Zuckerberg's representatives around 10 years ago to inform them that part of the compound housed the remains of his great-grandmother and her brother, according to the report. Julian Ako negotiated with Zuckerberg's team for months before finally being able to gain access to the burial site and register the graves with Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources. According to WIRED, Ako tried unsuccessfully to locate the remains of other ancestor that may be buried on Zuckerberg's property. Hawaiian officials told WIRED that they confirmed 'the probability (based on oral testimony) of additional burial sites.' The burial site, first identified in 2015, was 'fenced off and maintained' after being discovered, Hoffine Barr told the publication. She added that workers are 'bound by regulations that require reporting of inadvertent discoveries of iwi' — or Hawaiian ancestral bones. But because workers on the project are bound by strict nondisclosure agreements, local residents fear that any future discovery of iwi could be concealed. 'If all of the workers have signed these nondisclosure agreements, then basically they're sworn to silence,' Ako told WIRED. 'If they uncover iwi — or bones — it's going to be a challenge for that to ever become public knowledge, because they're putting their jobs in jeopardy.' Zuckerberg began buying land on Kauai in 2014, acquiring 700 acres near the town of Kilauea for roughly $100 million (AU$153m). The purchase included parcels where hundreds of local residents held kuleana rights — traditional Hawaiian legal entitlements whereby descendants of original Native Hawaiian landowners can claim ancestral lands. In 2016, Zuckerberg filed 'quiet title and partition' lawsuits against those residents to clarify ownership. He later dropped the suits after public backlash, but the legal process continued under kuleana descendant Carlos Andrade, who eventually won sole ownership of the land at auction. In a 2017 op-ed, Zuckerberg wrote that Andrade, who died in 2022, could 'continue his quiet title action and pass down the kuleana rights because he had lived on and cared for these lands for more than 40 years.' By spring 2021, Zuckerberg added more than 560 acres of ranchland, some of it abutting Larsen's Beach. Later that year, he purchased another 110 acres, including the Kaloko Dam, an earthen reservoir that collapsed in 2006, killing seven people. Zuckerberg's presence on the island has drawn both support and scepticism. He has donated millions to local non-profits, including a charter school and an affordable housing organisation near the compound. His projects have also created well-paying jobs. But many locals remain uneasy about the influence of billionaires on the island's future. 'If our island has any hope of remaining Hawaii, this kind of activity has got to stop,' Puali'i Rossi, a professor of Native Hawaiian studies at Kauai Community College, told WIRED. 'Eventually Hawaii isn't going to look like Hawaii anymore — it's going to be a resort community. Are we really thinking about 100 years from now, what this island is going to look like?'
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter
US law experts say Donald Trump faces significant hurdles in his $10 billion case against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal over reports he sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a sexually suggestive drawing. The lawsuit, filed in the Florida Supreme Court, claims the Wall Street Journal "failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter and failed to explain how this letter was obtained". But experts say defamation cases, brought forward by public figures, are notoriously hard to prove in the US, and they rarely make it to a jury. The paper has said it was prepared to "vigorously" defend its journalism. If the case does go to trial, Mr Trump may be forced to provide information about the nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile and billionaire, and the Journal may be asked to show how it obtained the letter or proved its existence. So, how likely is it Mr Trump will get his day in court? Winning or settling a defamation case in the US can be difficult, mostly due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is even more difficult for a public figure like Donald Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, said Harry Melkonian, a media lawyer and honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre. "It is extremely difficult and intentionally made so for public figures to bring defamation claims in the US," he said. "By definition, the US president is the most public of public figures." Shawn Trier, a constitutional law expert at Australian National University, agreed. "A case in the early 1960s during the civil rights movement found that even if you have factual information that's incorrect, unless you prove a term called actual malice — that you knew it was wrong or didn't care — it would be really hard for that to be proven," he said. Actual malice is knowledge that the material published was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. "In the case of the Wall Street Journal, it would literally have to be the case that they knew the letter was false or knew it didn't exist or they had a really good reason to suspect it was forged but ignored it," Dr Tier said. Dr Melkonian said the Supreme Court set this standard for public figures to prevent self-censorship by the media. "They also felt that public figures are pretty well equipped to respond publicly to undo any harm, and Trump can get on TV any night and say this story is false, they made it up," he said. "So when you combine all those things, it makes for an extremely difficult case, and quite honestly, I've read the complaint and I think they will have difficulties even getting this complaint to court." In Australia, defamation law is "relatively straightforward", Dr Melkonian said. If a publisher prints something that a person says isn't true, the publisher must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is. But American law is the opposite, Dr Melkonian said; the public figure has to prove the story is false. "Trump has to prove they either knew it was false or they harboured serious doubts and did it anyway," Dr Melkonian said. "And he has to prove that by an exaggerated standard of proof." But US courts rarely find that actual malice exists, and there has only been one case, which was between Time Magazine and the Israeli defence minister in 1984. Court documents show that Mr Trump will argue that such a letter did not exist and the two journalists who wrote the story "possessed information and had access to information that showed their statements were false." It does not say, however, what that information was. "The mere fact that he told them 'it's false' before they printed it isn't enough because if that was, you could stop anything from being printed," Dr Melkonian said. From the legal documents, it appears Mr Trump will also argue that the circulation of the story created further damage to his reputation. "And given the timing of the defendants' article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply," the court documents said. But Dr Melkonian said, "he's already said it's false, and he certainly has made more publicity saying it's false than the Wall Street Journal got with the article." Dr Melkonian said public figures sometimes took steps like Mr Trump's to "make it clear to the public that they believe the article is a falsehood". "Donald Trump has gotten a lot of publicity out of filing this case, and that may be the vindication that he wants now the public knows he is taking it to court to prove he didn't do it," he said. A $10 billion award would be the largest finding of defamation damages in history, dwarfing already-massive cases in recent US proceedings. These include a $1.5 billion judgement against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. "It's unlikely he has a legal case against the Wall Street Journal, but it probably helped him politically," Dr Trier said. "He likes to do this a lot, to say 'look how I've been treated, it's so bad I'm suing.'" The Wall Street Journal has indicated it will defend itself. "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a spokesperson for publisher Dow Jones said in a statement. Yesterday, the White House removed the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering Trump's upcoming weekend trip to Scotland. "As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to various US media outlets. "Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board. Every news organisation in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible." While the Murdoch-owned media company has the power to fight such a case, many do not. "It could have an insidious effect on journalism and free speech," Dr Trier said. "There should be early dismissals [in defamation cases like these], but there are still costs, and smaller organisations that get threats like this are more likely to back down. "It raises a lot of concerns, and Trump has been very unique in using his office to carry out these retributions against the media."
