
Remember Cambridge Analytica? What to know about the $8B US lawsuit against Meta's board
The plaintiffs, led by Amalgamated Bank Inc., will argue in court in Wilmington, Del., that the harvesting of data of Facebook users in the Cambridge case was in violation of a 2012 agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
It's an investors' lawsuit that Meta battled all the way to the Supreme Court. The nine justices even heard arguments last November, before doing an about-turn just a couple weeks later, unanimously allowing the case to go forward.
Here's a look at how the case proceeded, and what to expect:
Cambridge Analytica, revisited
In 2018, revelations that data from tens of millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica emerged, in part due to a Canadian whistleblower. The now-defunct political consulting firm did work for Republican candidate Ted Cruz, who nonetheless lost to Donald Trump, and then the firm worked for Trump during his successful 2016 presidential campaign.
Cambridge Analytica's investors included Trump ally Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer, a reclusive billionaire who agreed to support Trump's campaign after first backing Cruz.
Cambridge Analytica harvested data on users who answered a Facebook quiz app, This Is Your Digital Life, as well as friends of those users.
Zuckerberg admitted it was a "major breach of trust" on Facebook's part.
"We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you," he said in an early 2018 statement.
Scandal has been costly for Facebook
The FTC fined Facebook $5 billion in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, saying the company had violated a 2012 agreement with the FTC to protect user data. That same year, Facebook reached a $100 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for misleading investors.
In 2022, Facebook settled a class-action lawsuit with users for $725 million, without admitting wrongdoing.
On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019.
Who's going to testify?
The trial will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants including former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, and former board members Peter Thiel, the Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix.
Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under President Joe Biden and a Meta director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to be one of the first witnesses to take the stand in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court.
A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment.
What do shareholders want?
Shareholders want the defendants to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8 billion.
In court filings, the defendants described the allegations as "extreme" and said the evidence at trial will show Facebook hired an outside consulting firm to ensure compliance with the FTC agreement and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica's deceit.
In addition to privacy claims at the heart of the Meta case, plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg anticipated that the Cambridge Analytica scandal would send the company's stock lower and sold his Facebook shares as a result, pocketing at least $1 billion.
Defendants said evidence will show that Zuckerberg did not trade on inside information and that he used a stock-trading plan that removes his control over sales and is designed to guard against insider trading.
The plaintiff attorneys also contend that Sandberg and Zients used personal email accounts to communicate about key issues relating to the suit, and didn't turn off the auto-delete function, despite being told to preserve their records.
McCormick is expected to rule on liability and damages months after the trial concludes.
What has happened elsewhere?
Given Facebook's global reach, the scandal spawned various types of litigation around the world.
Canadian class-action lawsuits stemming from the Cambridge Analytica breach were rejected in a number of provincial jurisdictions.
In addition, a Federal Court judge in 2023 dismissed the federal privacy watchdog's bid for a declaration that Facebook broke the the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, known as PIPEDA. The judge agreed with Facebook's argument that once a user authorizes it to disclose information to an app, the social media company's safeguarding duties under PIPEDA come to an end.
In the U.K., Facebook was fined the maximum £500,000 ($921,000 Cdn) for breaches of its data protection laws.
Meta late last year settled for $50 million Australian ($44 million Cdn) on a "no admission basis," after the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner alleged the country's privacy laws were breached.
What was Cambridge Analytica's political impact?
While the Democrats pounced on the revelations in 2018, its political impact was downplayed by many experts.
A Nature magazine investigation concluded that "evidence of Cambridge Analytica's independent impact on voter behaviour is basically nonexistent" and that "there is also no evidence that Cambridge Analytica in fact deployed psychographic models while working for the Trump campaign."
An expert from Tufts University in Massachusetts, in U.S. Senate testimony, said that it was likely many Facebook users were mistargeted, likening the approach to broad-based robocalls.
"No evidence has been produced publicly about the firm's profiling or targeting to suggest that its efforts were effective," said Eitan Hersh of Tufts, author of the book Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Ex-NYPD commissioner sues NYC mayor, alleging he ran police department as a 'criminal enterprise'
NEW YORK — A former New York City interim police commissioner filed a civil racketeering lawsuit Wednesday against his one-time boss, Mayor Eric Adams, and other top department officials, alleging they showered loyalists with unearned promotions, buried allegations of misconduct, and gratuitously punished whistleblowers. Article content In a lawsuit filed in federal court, the ex-commissioner, Thomas Donlon, accused Adams and his inner circle of operating the nation's largest police department as a 'criminal enterprise.' Article content Article content Their alleged corruption triggered a 'massive, unlawful transfer of public wealth,' the suit states, through unearned salary increases, overtime payments, pension enhancement and other benefits. Article content Article content With Adams' approval, his cadre of hand-picked police leaders also sought to obstruct internal investigations, while targeting dissenters with leaks through the press, the suit alleges. Article content Inquiries to the New York City Police Department and City Hall were not immediately returned. Article content 'This lawsuit is not a personal grievance,' Donlon said in a statement. 'It is a statement against a corrupt system that betrays the public, silences truth, and punishes integrity.' Article content Donlon, a career FBI official who had not previously worked in the NYPD, was brought in as interim commissioner last September to stabilize a department shaken by federal investigations. Article content Article content His predecessor, Edward Caban, stepped down after federal authorities seized his electronic devices as part of an investigation that also involved his brother, a former police officer, along with several other high-ranking police officials. Caban has denied wrongdoing and not been criminally charged. Article content Article content Donlon had spent decades working on terrorism cases, including the investigation into the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and was a top counterterrorism official for the FBI's New York office. He also led New York state's Office of Homeland Security before going into the private sector security industry. Article content But about a week into his tenure, federal authorities searched Donlon's homes and seized decades-old materials that he said at the time were unrelated to his work with the NYPD. Article content Donlon lasted about two months on the job before current police Commissioner Jessica Tisch took over, pledging to restore trust to the department.


CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Legacy Motor Club sues broker for alleged interference in NASCAR charter deal with Rick Ware Racing
A Rick Ware Racing patch is displayed on the fire suit of driver Cody Ware prior to the NASCAR Cup Series 300 auto race at New Hampshire Motor Speedway in Loudon, N.H., Sunday, Sept. 24, 2017. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Legacy Motor Club on Wednesday sued the broker who helped negotiate its purchase of a charter from Rick Ware Racing, accusing him of tortious interference for now trying to buy Ware's NASCAR team. Legacy alleged in its filing in North Carolina Superior Court that T.J. Puchyr, acting as a consultant for the Cup Series team owned by seven-time NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson, violated the state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act by using 'insider knowledge and position of trust to interfere with Legacy's Agreement with RWR.' Legacy also accused Puchyr of making public personal attacks against Johnson when he announced last month his plans to purchase Ware's tiny race team. The dispute began not long after Legacy entered into agreement for Johnson and his partners at Knighthead Capital Management to purchase one of Ware's two charters. Legacy says the deal is for next season, when it plans to expand to three full-time Cup cars. RWR maintains the deal was for 2027 because it already is under contract with RFK Racing to lease that organization a charter next season. Ware says he didn't read the contract closely when he signed it to note that it read 2026, and that honoring the RFK contract and selling a second charter to Legacy next year would put the NASCAR team out of business. Legacy in April sued Ware, but as that fight is playing out, it claims Puchyr struck a deal to buy RWR. Puchyr is a co-founder of Spire Motorsports and now acts as a motorsports consultant. 'Mr. Puchyr was well aware of the parties' dispute. He knew of the charter purchase agreement between Legacy and RWR that he helped broker,' the suit contends. 'Despite Mr. Puchyr's insider knowledge of the contract, his obligations under his consulting agreement with Legacy, Legacy's contractual right to a charter ... Mr. Puchyr recently announced that he intends to purchase both of RWR's charters for himself.' The latest filing is part of two active lawsuits surrounding charters, which are at the heart of NASCAR's business model. Having one is vital to a team's survival. 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are locked into a prolonged suit with NASCAR over antitrust allegations against the most popular motorsports series in the United States. 23XI, co-owned by retired NBA great Michael Jordan, and Front Row, owned by entrepreneur Bob Jenkins, last September refused to sign the charter agreements offered by NASCAR after more than two years of contentious negotiations on extensions. The two were the only holdouts out of 15 organizations to refuse the extensions. They instead sued and are awaiting a federal judge's decision on if they will be stripped of their six combined charters as the case heads toward a Dec. 1 trial date. NASCAR has said it has asked multiple times for settlement proposals but heard nothing. NASCAR also has no intention of renegotiating the charter agreements held by 30 other teams. Johnson, despite his own legal fight, said last weekend that he supported a settlement in the antitrust case. 'I would love to see a settlement of some kind,' Johnson said. 'I really don't think that getting into a knock-down, drag-out lawsuit is good for anybody.' ___ Jenna Fryer, The Associated Press

2 hours ago
Remember Cambridge Analytica? What to know about the $8B US lawsuit against Meta's board
More than seven years after a privacy scandal involving Facebook and the Cambridge Analytica consulting firm emerged, an $8-billion US class action investors' lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg and other Meta board members will begin. The plaintiffs, led by Amalgamated Bank Inc., will argue in court in Wilmington, Del., that the harvesting of data of Facebook users in the Cambridge case was in violation of a 2012 agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It's an investors' lawsuit that Meta battled all the way to the Supreme Court. The nine justices even heard arguments last November, before doing an about-turn just a couple weeks later, unanimously allowing the case to go forward (new window) . Here's a look at how the case proceeded, and what to expect: Cambridge Analytica, revisited In 2018, revelations that data from tens of millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica emerged, in part due to a Canadian whistleblower. The now-defunct political consulting firm did work for Republican candidate Ted Cruz, who nonetheless lost to Donald Trump, and then the firm worked for Trump during his successful 2016 presidential campaign. Cambridge Analytica's investors included Trump ally Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer, a reclusive billionaire (new window) who agreed to support Trump's campaign after first backing Cruz. Enlarge image (new window) Christopher Wylie, the Canadian whistleblower who formerly worked with Cambridge Analytica, is shown during an interview with CNBC on Oct. 9, 2019. Photo: Reuters / Brendan McDermid Cambridge Analytica harvested data on users who answered a Facebook quiz app, This Is Your Digital Life, as well as friends of those users. Zuckerberg admitted it was a major breach of trust on Facebook's part. We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you, he said in an early 2018 statement. Scandal has been costly for Facebook The FTC fined Facebook $5 billion (new window) in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, saying the company had violated a 2012 agreement with the FTC to protect user data. That same year, Facebook reached a $100 million settlement (new window) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for misleading investors. In 2022, Facebook settled a U.S. class-action lawsuit (new window) with users for $725 million, without admitting wrongdoing. On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019. Who's going to testify? The trial will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants including former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, and former board members Peter Thiel, the Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix. Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under President Joe Biden and a Meta director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to be one of the first witnesses to take the stand in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court. A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment to Reuters. Jeffrey Zients, right, is shown with then-president Joe Biden on Feb. 1, 2023 in Washington, D.C., Zients, previously a member of Facebook's board, is among those expected to testify. / Kevin Dietsch What do shareholders want? Shareholders want the defendants to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8 billion. In court filings, the defendants described the allegations as extreme and said the evidence at trial will show Facebook hired an outside consulting firm to ensure compliance with the FTC agreement and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica's deceit. Max Huffman, plaintiff attorney, walks into the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center where Mark Zuckerberg and other top officials from Meta Platforms will take the stand to defend against allegations by investors that they should be held liable for billions of dollars in fines for privacy violations by Facebook, in Wilmington, Del., on Wednesday. Photo: Reuters / Rachel Wisniewski In addition to privacy claims at the heart of the Meta case, plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg anticipated that the Cambridge Analytica scandal would send the company's stock lower and sold his Facebook shares as a result, pocketing at least $1 billion. Defendants said evidence will show that Zuckerberg did not trade on inside information and that he used a stock-trading plan that removes his control over sales and is designed to guard against insider trading. The plaintiff attorneys also contend that Sandberg and Zients used personal email accounts to communicate about key issues relating to the suit, and didn't turn off the auto-delete function, despite being told to preserve their records (new window) . McCormick is expected to rule on liability and damages months after the trial concludes. What has happened elsewhere? Given Facebook's global reach, the scandal spawned various types of litigation around the world. Canadian class-action lawsuits stemming from the Cambridge Analytica breach were rejected (new window) in a number of provincial jurisdictions (new window) . In addition, a Federal Court judge in 2023 dismissed the federal privacy watchdog's bid for a declaration that Facebook broke the the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, known as PIPEDA. The judge agreed with Facebook's argument that once a user authorizes it to disclose information to an app, the social media company's safeguarding duties under PIPEDA come to an end. In the U.K., Facebook was fined the maximum £500,000 ($921,000 Cdn) for breaches of its data protection laws. Meta late last year settled (new window) for $50 million Australian ($44 million Cdn) on a no admission basis, after the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner alleged the country's privacy laws were breached. What was Cambridge Analytica's political impact? While the Democrats pounced on the revelations in 2018, its political impact was downplayed by many experts. A Nature magazine investigation (new window) assessed that evidence of Cambridge Analytica's independent impact on voter behaviour is basically nonexistent and that there is also no evidence that Cambridge Analytica in fact deployed psychographic models while working for the Trump campaign. An expert from Tufts University in Massachusetts, in U.S. Senate testimony (new window) , said that it was likely many Facebook users were mistargeted, likening the approach to broad-based robocalls. No evidence has been produced publicly about the firm's profiling or targeting to suggest that its efforts were effective, said Eitan Hersh of Tufts, author of the book Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. Bringing up the Cruz loss to Trump, the British blog Little Atoms was more trenchant, stating that Cambridge Analytica's flashy data science team got beaten by a dude with a thousand-dollar website. With files from Reuters, the Canadian Press and the Associated Press