Mark Zuckerberg, Meta founder and CEO, decided to reconcile in a high -profile case against Facebook user privacy violations with some members of the board of directors in the past and currently. This case, which was filed by the company shareholders, was one of the most serious legal processes that Meta has long faced. The case requested 8 billion dollars compensation for allegedly damaged billions of dollars of the company. It was stated that the damage subject to the case was linked to the abuse of user data.
The case, which was seen at the Delaware Court of Appeal, was closed with a compromise before entering its second day. Judge Kathaleen McCormick ended the hearing without having to call important names to testimony. Although the details of the compromise have not yet been announced, it is thought that a solution is reached with a payment of less than $ 8 billion requested. With this development, the company’s loss of reputation was prevented.
It was suggested that meta managers did not control the compliance with the agreement with FTC.
The basic accusation filed within the scope of the lawsuit was based on the fact that the commodity managers did not show the required care for the data privacy agreement dated 2012 with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 2019, FTC fined 5 billion dollars on the grounds that he had violated this agreement to Facebook. The shareholders argued that this damage was caused by the neglect of the management staff. Meta described all these charges as “exaggerated” and “unquestionable”.
In addition to Zuckerberg, the defendants also included important names such as Marc Andreessen, Sheryl Sandberg and Peter Thiel. The shareholders claimed that the billions of dollars paid by the company were due to the personal negligence of the managers. For this reason, the defendants were asked to cover this damage with their own personal delegation. Although the defendants initially opposed these demands, a compromise was achieved before the case was growing.
This case was directly linked to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, especially in 2016. In the scandal, millions of Facebook users’ data were collected for political purposes without permission and used in Donald Trump’s election campaign. This made not only question the reliability of the company, but also the approach to user privacy. After the scandal, Cambridge Analytica was closed, but their echoes were still in progress.
Speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs on the first day of the case, expert witnesses, Facebook’s data security policies are serious gaps, he said. It was emphasized that the company did not close these deficits for years and that the privacy of users has been constantly violated. Despite this, Meta insisted that his policies were within the legal framework in his statements. However, the documents submitted to the court revealed that this discourse is contradictory.
Meta’s legal file is not limited to this case. The company is also facing a major competition case filed by the Federal Trade Commission. In this case, it is claimed that Meta has purchased Instagram and WhatsApp and prevented competition in the market. The hearings have been completed, but the decision has not yet been announced.
In addition, Zuckerberg’s name has come to the agenda with allegations that Meta’s artificial intelligence model Llama is using pirate content. Although the company denies these claims, copyright debates in the world of technology continue to grow. As the company progresses in the field of AI, it is seriously questioned how much legal and ethical limits take into account. This shows that Meta will remain at the focus of discussions not only with its past, but also with its future projects.
In addition, Meta accepted a $ 25 million compromise in a lawsuit filed in 2021 due to the suspension of Donald Trump’s Facebook account. In this process, Trump made political threats to Zuckerberg and gave revenge messages in the election process. At the center of the incident, Trump’s role in January 6 Congress. Meta’s decision caused the questioning of the position of the platforms against political figures.