Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta

#51

Post by aprilthird2021 » Sun, Nov 24, 2024, 3:32 PM UTC

parsimo2010 wrote: post #42

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #15

I think I understand the CA scandal well, but how could it be reasonably expected for Facebook to give investors adequate notice that a third party could misuse their targeted ads feature (to my knowledge CA did not hack FB, they simply used targeted ads)? It's as if expecting recently IPO'd Beyond Meat to disclose to investors the possibility that someone might choke on a meatball they make with the meat...

Regular risks/hazards that are present for every product don’t need to be disclosed, but if there is something about your product that presents a unique risk, you need to disclose it to investors. Investors normally don’t worry about mundane risks being disclosed, so there will probably be statements like “if the overall plant-based food sector does not grow as fast as our projections then we may not hit our growth/p…

> The issue isn’t that something bad happened, investors have to take risks. The issue is whether FB knew, and misled investors by lying or intentionally misleading wording.

Thanks for the clarification. Let's see what happens.

Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta

#52

Post by rkagerer » Sun, Nov 24, 2024, 6:02 PM UTC

TwentyPosts wrote: post #46

rkagerer wrote: post #33

Am I the only one a little bit sickened that the multi-billion dollar lawsuit is to the [potential] benefit of investors, rather than the users who were harmed?

The reality is that it's much easier to bring a lawsuit over damage done to shareholders (dropped stock value is measurable and easy to see, security fraud), than it is to bring a lawsuit over damage done to users (harm done to individual users is hard to measure).

It's a real shame damage to privacy isn't acknowledged as self-evident.

Of the 87 million or so individuals who were impacted[1], only 270,000 gave their consent[2]:

The first step for those filling out the questionnaire was to grant access to their Facebook profiles. Once they did, an app then harvested their data and that of their friends."

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-ana...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-ana...

Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta

#53

Post by jrflowers » Sun, Nov 24, 2024, 6:25 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30

jrflowers wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. This is a cool thing to believe, your stories about this must be fascinating. What have been the differences between your personal experiences engaging in the regulatory system in the United States as a consumer versus the times you’ve engaged with the regulatory system in the US as an investor?

> What have been the differences between your personal experiences engaging in the regulatory system in the United States as a consumer versus the times you’ve engaged with the regulatory system in the US as an investor? The latter requires counsel. The former can command state attorneys generals, regulatory bodies and small-claims courts and arbitrators who, while imperfect to flawed, are paid for by the taxpayer or…

This makes sense. While arbitration may be heavily skewed against consumers due to the incentives created by corporations paying for them, it is often free for the consumer to be ruled against with no recourse. This is a great example to introduce in support of the idea that the system is stacked in favor of consumers becau

Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta

#54

Post by mmooss » Sun, Nov 24, 2024, 7:23 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35

mmooss wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers > If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer. I have never heard someone claim that (which doesn't make it false). Almost everyone I interact with says the large investors and executives have far more power - and now fa…

> large investors and executives have far more power This is accurate. Money is power. The point is that independent of wealth, the hierarchy holds. Even among the wealthy, the most powerful suits allege breaches of consumer rights or fundamental freedoms.

> Even among the wealthy, the most powerful suits allege breaches of consumer rights or fundamental freedoms.

Could you give examples? The most 'powerful' (not sure what you mean exactly) suits are that I can think of off the top of my head are about M&A.

Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta

#55

Post by csdreamer7 » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 5:19 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34

csdreamer7 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Legally, yes. Practically, many employers bounce paycheques and get away with it. It’s tedious to enforce worker rights in a way it isn’t for consumers. (In most states, you can get the AG basically working for you by copying their office on a complaint to the company.) Not sure what the point of your argument is. Many employers get away with bouncing paychecks but you can get the state AG working for you by CCing…

> Many employers get away with bouncing paychecks but you can get the state AG working for you by CCing them on email Yes, this is the practical reality of the law. What the law says on paper that isn’t enforced isn’t relevant to one’s day to day experience of it. > going through the hassle of collecting proof, filing a factual police report and showing up in court to testify The point is as a consumer various public…

> Yes, this is the practical reality of the law. What the law says on paper that isn’t enforced isn’t relevant to one’s day to day experience of it.

You can say that about any law. It is a negative argument. The law not being enforced has no relevance to my earlier statement; you incorrectly arguing employees have far fewer rights over consumers.

> The point is as a consumer various public bodies will do this for you. As an employee (or investor) you have to do it for yourself.

Once again, not true. Investor protection is literally the job of the SEC. OSHA protects employees from hazard workplaces. Every state has an agency that investigates wage theft. Many states governments make most of their money from personal incomes-they have an incentive to prevent wage theft.

Honestly, I would argue consumer protection is the weakest in the US of the three.