5 ms·

Can any lawyers summarize the actual lawsuit? What do these investors want exactly, more money? The stock price went up by any measure, from Feb 3, 2017 to Ma

Can any lawyers summarize the actual lawsuit? What do these investors want exactly, more money? The stock price went up by any measure, from Feb 3, 2017 to Mar 19, 2018, so it can't be compensation for that. Unless they are willing to give those gains back?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Pilfer 9y ago
I have read the lawsuit, and it accuses Facebook of making false and misleading statements in their data privacy policy. It takes issue with this section of Facebook's privacy policy: While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have: • received your permission; • given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or • removed your name and any other personally identifying information from it. The lawsuit claims Facebook violated bullet points 1 and 2, citing the CA news. The lawsuit uses this point to argue Facebook lied to their investors, did not provide more information on this in their SEC filings, and that investors suffering financial loss when the stock price fell after CA news.
- philipodonnell 9y ago
  Is that policy dated? Its possible a different privacy policy was in effect when all this went down.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Facebook has lost almost $60 billion in value since the CA story broke. If you’re an investor, and this information wasn’t publicly available to you, you might feel aggrieved and want to seek compensation.
- 734786710934 9y ago
  Should investors be able to sue a company anytime its stock goes down?
  - yup123 9y ago
    They may sue when there is suspicion that the company didn’t disclose info that may affect their value.
  - Agathos 9y ago
    Someone pretty much always will. It's stupid.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nabla9 9y ago
    Facebook is a public company. They have strict rules related to informing stock owners and insider trading. Investors should be able to win a lawsuit if they can prove that company did not immediately disclsee important information, falsified information or that some owners were privy to insider information when they traded (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time).
    - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
      > (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time). It's more interesting than that: > Zuckerberg has sold more Facebook stock in the last 3 months than any insider at any other company Given that there were indications that he knew well before today, there may be a case. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-stock-selling-dwarfs-all-other-insiders.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-stock-s...
      - danabramov 9y ago
        If you read the article a bit further, you might find the explanation: >Zuckerberg's sales accounted for the most, by far. He announced plans in September to sell 35 million to 75 million shares over the next 18 months to fund philanthropic efforts. It's not new and was announced in September 2017. From the same article: >CEO Mark Zuckerberg sold 1.14 million shares as part of regularly scheduled programs.
dfxm12 9y ago
IANAL, but I think the key phrase from the article is this: "The suit would represent people who bought shares of Facebook from Feb. 3, 2017, when Facebook filed its annual report and cited security breaches and improper access to user data, through March 19. Investors may be able to sue Facebook successfully if they can show the company induced them to invest based in part on false, misleading or incomplete information regarding practices that might have averted the user privacy issues, Robbins said." The fact is, Facebook knew about the voter-profile harvesting. The question is, were they legally supposed to disclose it publicly and did anyone invest in Facebook under the false pretenses created by Facebook choosing not to disclose it. It's kinda narrow and it is very hard to prove why someone chooses to invest in a company. I doubt this get much traction. I also think it sets a scary precedent, unless the plaintiffs can prove Facebook covered this up with an intention to lure potential investors (like a memo from Zuck stating as such).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Pilfer 9y ago

I have read the lawsuit, and it accuses Facebook of making false and misleading statements in their data privacy policy. It takes issue with this section of Facebook's privacy policy: While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have: • received your permission; • given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or • removed your name and any other personally identifying information from it. The lawsuit claims Facebook violated bullet points 1 and 2, citing the CA news. The lawsuit uses this point to argue Facebook lied to their investors, did not provide more information on this in their SEC filings, and that investors suffering financial loss when the stock price fell after CA news.

philipodonnell 9y ago
Is that policy dated? Its possible a different privacy policy was in effect when all this went down.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Facebook has lost almost $60 billion in value since the CA story broke. If you’re an investor, and this information wasn’t publicly available to you, you might feel aggrieved and want to seek compensation.

734786710934 9y ago
Should investors be able to sue a company anytime its stock goes down?
- yup123 9y ago
  They may sue when there is suspicion that the company didn’t disclose info that may affect their value.
- Agathos 9y ago
  Someone pretty much always will. It's stupid.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nabla9 9y ago
  Facebook is a public company. They have strict rules related to informing stock owners and insider trading. Investors should be able to win a lawsuit if they can prove that company did not immediately disclsee important information, falsified information or that some owners were privy to insider information when they traded (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time).
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    > (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time). It's more interesting than that: > Zuckerberg has sold more Facebook stock in the last 3 months than any insider at any other company Given that there were indications that he knew well before today, there may be a case. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-stock-selling-dwarfs-all-other-insiders.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-stock-s...
    - danabramov 9y ago
      If you read the article a bit further, you might find the explanation: >Zuckerberg's sales accounted for the most, by far. He announced plans in September to sell 35 million to 75 million shares over the next 18 months to fund philanthropic efforts. It's not new and was announced in September 2017. From the same article: >CEO Mark Zuckerberg sold 1.14 million shares as part of regularly scheduled programs.

dfxm12 9y ago

IANAL, but I think the key phrase from the article is this: "The suit would represent people who bought shares of Facebook from Feb. 3, 2017, when Facebook filed its annual report and cited security breaches and improper access to user data, through March 19. Investors may be able to sue Facebook successfully if they can show the company induced them to invest based in part on false, misleading or incomplete information regarding practices that might have averted the user privacy issues, Robbins said." The fact is, Facebook knew about the voter-profile harvesting. The question is, were they legally supposed to disclose it publicly and did anyone invest in Facebook under the false pretenses created by Facebook choosing not to disclose it. It's kinda narrow and it is very hard to prove why someone chooses to invest in a company. I doubt this get much traction. I also think it sets a scary precedent, unless the plaintiffs can prove Facebook covered this up with an intention to lure potential investors (like a memo from Zuck stating as such).