45 ms·

France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

349 points by ComodoHacker 7y ago

singularity2001 7y ago
Doesn't this violate the freedom of speech?
- zmzrr 7y ago
  I am not saying it necessarily applies to this case, but France, like all countries in the EU, does not have actual freedom of speech.
  - chki 7y ago
    That's not true. At least not for the common definitions of "freedom of speech".
    - zmzrr 7y ago
      There are blasphemy laws for instance. Right to be forgotten. Etc.
      - chki 7y ago
        Which means that freedom of speech is (in some cases) limited because of the religious freedom of others. It doesn't mean that freedom of speech doesn't exist, it means that the "balancing exercise" between certain Rights is performed differently. Edit: There is no state in the world where there exists some sort of "absolute freedom of speech".
        slynn12 7y ago
        Agreed ^. The classic example of screaming fire in a movie theater...
    - swebs 7y ago
      I'm not familiar with French law. Can you point to us where it explicitly grants freedom of speech?
      - chki 7y ago
        I'm also not familiar with French law but this https://www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/france.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/france.php seems to be a good resource. One thing I am familiar with is the European Convention on Human Rights which grants Freedom of speech in Article 10 and which is binding in France.
    - dgellow 7y ago
      The "freedom of speech" discussed here is a legal concept, known as the 1st amendment of the US constitution. The common definition isn't really relevant. And it's true that France doesn't actually have such a thing guaranteed by the law. The closest you have is "liberté d'expression" which isn't as broad as "freedom of speech" in the US sense, and doesn't guarantee the same level of freedom.
      - chki 7y ago
        It's not clear to me why "actual freedom of speech" should be equal to what is guaranteed by the US constitution. That would be like me saying "The US doesn't have the 'Right to Life'" because I'm exclusively applying the European definition of that term. Freedom of expression/freedom of speech is guaranteed in some way in all Western nations, the difference – as you correctly point out – is the degree to which other rights are also taken into account when applying the Right to freedom of speech. But that's an extremely important distinction and it cannot be said that France doesn't have Freedom of speech.
  - dgellow 7y ago
    It's ... complicated. France does have a concept of "liberté d'expression" (literally "freedom of speech"), but it isn't equivalent to the US 1st amendment. That won't help you if you don't read french, but you can see here that while the "Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen" from 1789 has a concept somehow similar to "freedom of speech", a lot of exceptions have been created since then. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9_d%27expression#En_France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9_d%27expression#En... In practice you're correct that France doesn't have what US citizen mean by "freedom of speech". Though that becomes messy because the literal translation of the expression actually exists in the law, but with a different meaning.
    - zmzrr 7y ago
      Yes, I agree. I don't like to bring up the boogeyman of the year, but China also has a concept of freedom of speech, and see how it works for them. Just saying you have it doesn't mean anything when there are lots of exceptions. Blasphemy laws are an example. Absolute freedom of speech is indeed not existent anywhere, and probably impractical. But US-level freedom of speech is fine (which is what we usually talk about when we say "freedom of speech"), and France does not have that.
- IanDrake 7y ago
  I think you mean freedom of the press? Libel is still illegal. Frankly, the problem with the press in the US is that it's lost all credibility and is mostly filled with activist instead of journalists.
- swebs 7y ago
  The French constitution does not guarantee Freedom of Speech. That is a uniquely American thing.
  - humanrebar 7y ago
    Eh. The original philosophy, liberalism, is European in origin, including some notable French contributions.
  - decebalus1 7y ago
    American exceptionalism is a uniquely American thing. Freedom of speech in the constitution is not. Even Cuba has freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution.
danso 7y ago
Here's a non-paywalled version via Reuters (who, it should be said, is a Bloomberg competitor in the financial news space): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-amf-bloomberg/frances-amf-watchdog-fines-bloomberg-5-million-over-vinci-hoax-idUSKBN1YK1VN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-amf-bloomberg/fran... Here's a more in-depth explanation from 2017 (the incident happened in 2016): https://www.complianceweek.com/the-vinci-code-fake-news-press-releases/9877.article https://www.complianceweek.com/the-vinci-code-fake-news-pres...
- dang 7y ago
  We've changed to the Reuters article from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/bloomberg-lp-fined-5-6-million-in-french-case-over-hoax-release https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/bloomberg-lp-fi.... Thanks!
cs702 7y ago
Why are mass purveyors of anti-news and propaganda on the Internet not fined like this?
- rc_mob 7y ago
  rtfa fine is from France, not USA
aneutron 7y ago
SuperMicro, if you're listening ....
- ferdek 7y ago
  I was willing to bet before opening the link that it's about SuperMicro. I would lost the bet ;)
the_duke 7y ago
In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains: * list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc ) * a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of information, only that the addendum is representative of the research done) * A hash of a archive file containing all collected information (including interview transcripts/notes, etc) with a responsibility to keep this archive for X years and to provide it to regulators on request; info can be anonymized/redacted as deemed necessary Combine this with a fine for the publication if they failed to verify information with a reasonable effort, and it could do a lot of good for the world of news. Of course all regulation comes with pitfalls, and there are many with this idea, especially with the fine aspect. Probably enough to make it undesirable. But it is the only one I have to improve things. Edit: Since this has been mentioned: it's possible to allow anonymous sources, but eg with the rule that anonymization has to be justified and may not be abused. But this feeds into the biggest problem with the whole idea: a fine can give regulators too much power to punish publications arbitrarily.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Fascinating. So that’s how well-intentioned people kill the free press.
  - nickpp 7y ago
    Regulations. How well-intentioned people kill every free thing.
- mar77i 7y ago
  Only because there doesn't seem any way to fuck this up right now, doesn't mean there, in fact, isn't. The ongoing pattern is that "at the time it seemed like the right thing to publish", when in fact it's just about spinning the spin. You can't prove how certain the publishers were about their spin at the time of publishing, not even with your suggested solution, that I guess, would only get more journalists fired, and last time I checked there's already plenty of that. Like how Snopes' fact checker seemed like a good idea, before they started getting things wrong too now and then. I mean, of course, it's not likely there's a holy grail solution and we're stuck in having to evaluate every day anew, which sources we trust and which we don't. Regarding the part where spinning the spin is at least followed up by corrections and apologies - which few people read, anyway, after the damage is done, but there's NewsGuard, which does fairly technical editorial rating, which i find a very good idea.
octocop 7y ago
whats beyond the pay wall?
neya 7y ago
Bloomberg literally compensates its writers for moving markets. So, the super micro case, this one and many others before these..no surprises here.
- lawrenceyan 7y ago
  It seems like that would make it extremely to keep journalistic integrity while working under such a compensation / commission structure. How are you supposed to trust a Bloomberg article when the writers are designing them specifically in a way to try and purposely move the market? They would have every incentive to exaggerate, embellish, and even go so far as lie as shown in this instance.
  - kevinmchugh 7y ago
    They also had an incentive to ignore or deprioritize stale or low impact stories. The bonuses required that the market impact be durable, and the stories still had to be edited to fit house style.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  No, they literally don't. In the past reporters got bonuses for the number of market-moving stories they broke, but that was predicated on the stories being accurate. That bonus program is no longer extant.
danso 7y ago
Here's an article from 2016 that seems to contemporaneously describe the incident at hand: https://web.archive.org/web/20161123142234/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/vinci-says-builder-isn-t-revising-acccounts-cfo-isn-t-fired https://web.archive.org/web/20161123142234/https://www.bloom... > Vinci SA fell victim to a fake release claiming the French builder had fired its finance chief amid accounting irregularities, prompting the stock to plunge before the company denied the report. > Bloomberg News was among the few news organizations to report from the false statement. > “We are a victim of a hoax,” spokesman Paul-Alexis Bouquet said on Tuesday, denying that the Paris-based company had released any statement. Although the company’s website hadn’t been hacked, technically speaking, fake statements had been sent in the company’s name, he said. > Investors were caught off guard after the publication of a release saying that Vinci had discovered an accounting error and had fired Chief Financial Officer Christian Labeyrie. The shares plunged 18 percent, the most in more than 17 years, before Bouquet said the report was false. Vinci will file a complaint about the incident, the spokesman said.
- La1n 7y ago
  > “We are a victim of a hoax,” Vinci was the victim of a hoax, Bloomberg was happy to report it without doing enough fact checking, they were spreading and part of the hoax.
  - danso 7y ago
    If the Vinci website itself had been hacked, and the faux press release distributed from there, Bloomberg would obviously have a strong case. That doesn't seem to be the situation though, and so I'm curious to what channel this fake press release came through, e.g. a spoof email or Twitter account.
    - etage3 7y ago
      Bloomberg received a release from vinci.group instead of vinci.com according to Le Monde's article. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/12/16/l-agence-de-presse-bloomberg-sanctionnee-pour-avoir-diffuse-de-fausses-nouvelles-a-la-bourse-de-paris_6023101_3234.html https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/12/16/l-agence-...
fbn79 7y ago
Do you remember the Bloomberg article about Big China Chip Hack? About Apple was been refuted, debunked, and ridiculed. See https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/04/editorial-a-year-later-bloomberg-silently-stands-by-its-big-hack-icloud-spy-chip-story https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/04/editorial-a-year-...
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  This story is so odd to me. On the one hand, if true, all Bloomberg had to do was produce evidence; a single compromised server. They didn't. On the other hand, if the journalists fabricated the entire story, saying that all these big companies were hacked, why didn't anybody sue them? It was a major accusation! It just kinda...disappeared.
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    >It just kinda...disappeared. This might be the answer to you second question. No one seems to have taken the Bloomberg story to be true. Just went "that's dumb" and dropped it. In fact the only times I've ever seen it resurface is in a context to point out something negative about Bloomberg (like now), not the companies named in the article. Sort of like the Elon Musk defamation case that just ended. Plaintiff didn't get anything because people didn't turn on him due to the accusation, they turned on Elon. If it's not believed then you couldn't have suffered harm.
    - CrazyStat 7y ago
      Super Micro's stock dropped about 30% and took months to recover.
      - privateprofile 7y ago
        And was there any legal action from Super Micro or other affected parties, like in this case?
      - r00fus 7y ago
C1sc0cat 7y ago
So Bloomberg got caught out by a fake press release and got fined - what happened to the originator of the fake press release? France has a problem /history with anonymous poison pen letters. Sounds to me like some one was settling scores and Bloomberg got caught I doubt that a French equivalent of Bloomberg would have been fined.
- _eLRIC 7y ago
  French press can be fined, don't worry, i.e C8 3M€ in 2017, Amaury press group 3.5 M€ un 2015 On that very case, no one can tell.
coldcode 7y ago
There is no real penalty for publishing fake news as if it was truth. Whole websites and media companies do it as a matter of course (often for political or manipulative purposes). 5.6M to Bloomberg is pocket change. There are of course still journalists with a burning desire to report the truth, but it's far easier and profitable to ignore it today. When the internet started we all thought that the truth would finally prevail only to find out the non-truth is easier to amplify.
- dgellow 7y ago
  > There is no real penalty for publishing fake news as if it was truth I'm not sure what you mean here. If you publish fake information about a public company, couldn't that be considered security fraud by the SEC? I'm not an expert at all, and don't know the details of what is or isn't actually considered a security fraud, so I may be completely off here. If we are talking about the more general idea of "fake news", since 2018 France has a law "against the manipulation of information": https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/against-information-manipulation https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/against-information-manipulat....
- auiya 7y ago
  > There is no real penalty for publishing fake news as if it was truth This depends on what country in which you operate. Many countries have made publishing fake news illegal. > When the internet started we all thought that the truth would finally prevail only to find out the non-truth is easier to amplify. When the Internet started, we didn't realize it would be commercialized so heavily that basically 3-4 companies control it all.
knorker 7y ago
Why? Didn't Fox News set a precedent when they won that lawsuit and courts agreed they had the right to lie in the news? Edit: Oh, because it's no the US.
- kecupochren 7y ago
  That's crazy
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  Even Snopes knows that's false. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ But nice try...
  - knorker 7y ago
    Thanks for the correction! I wish I could edit my comment. :-(
  - cabaalis 7y ago
    This shows why fake information is so powerful. No wonder it's used in politics.
wheybags 7y ago
My trust of bloomberg has been pretty low since the spy chip story, that seems to have been just a hoax. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
- privateprofile 7y ago
  Any guesses to why aren't Super Micro or other affected parties taking legal action, if it was a hoax like what's reported in this case?
  - tick_tock_tick 7y ago
    Being in the news several more times for a case about "spy chips" in your hardware isn't worth any money they'd get?
    - Karunamon 7y ago
      Bingo. Fighting it would just preserve the Streisand effect. There doesn't appear to have been any material impact from where I sit, and there haven't been any further stories along the same lines.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Generally, when a company doesn't sue over something like this, it's because they don't have a case. And that always means that enough of the allegations are true that they couldn't win an absolutely massive judgement in court. Because in the US, truth is an absolute defense to the defamation torts. (The same is not truth in the UK; you can still be liable for defamation even if everything you said is true. See, e.g., the case of the Nazi-fetishist MP.) The Streisand effect is not a thing companies worry about. Because more brand damage = more monetary damages to collect.
  - analyst74 7y ago
    Large commercial lawsuits are like investment, you invest precious resources into a lawsuit that may or may not pay off. It's entirely reasonable for a company to decide that it's not worth the investment and not pursue. And to refer back to this article, it's the French AMF fined Bloomberg, Vinci only had to file a complaint, not a full lawsuit with teams of lawyers.
stevespang 7y ago
Bloomberg is a libtard publisher, glad to see them fined.
tarcyanm 7y ago
Bloomberg is unique in being somewhat independent of the AP-AFP-Reuters stranglehold that is described with appropriate skepticism here: https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/ https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/ It would be interesting if that independence were regarded as a threat.
humanrebar 7y ago
The headline probably needs qualification that the fine was in Europe, not the U.S. I was shocked that any U.S. regulator would attempt to push against the First Amendment in this way. It's a different story with more context.
- damq 7y ago
  +1. In order for this to be punishable in the US, they would have had to have known this press release was fake before publishing it which would be a much different story. The headline should be updated to say they were fined by France.
- close04 7y ago
  > push against the First Amendment This isn't a freedom of speech issue since obviously they were free to say whatever they wanted, lies and misinformation included. This doesn't imply freedom from consequences. Causing a company to lose 18% value because they couldn't be bothered to verify is negligence, incompetence, or malice (or a combination) not freedom of speech and it's only fair to receive a fine. Bloomberg is making a habit of such reporting.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - comex 7y ago
    It is a freedom of speech issue, at least from a US perspective. Whether newspapers can be held liable for inadvertently publishing false information was the exact issue at hand in New York Times v. Sullivan, a case which is one of the foundations of modern First Amendment jurisprudence. It held that, in almost all circumstances, they cannot.
    - close04 7y ago
      I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. Inadvertent implies no intention, accidental. Bloomberg did zero due diligence with regard to this information, no attempt to validate it or the source was done before publishing. This resulted in market manipulation and that is punishable by law. Newspapers could always publish anything by just saying "I found it on the internet". Which is obviously not the case. The free speech and free press clauses protect public media as much as individual persons but what you say on social media will still be used against you. And talking about freedom of press, France doesn't look that bad at all. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
MarkMc 7y ago
I initially thought Michael Bloomberg had issued a fake press release. Title should really be "Bloomberg LP fined..." to distinguish the company from the man.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nstj 7y ago
@dang - arguably misleading title, please consider renaming to “Bloomberg LP fined €5m for publishing fake press release”. Current title can be read that Michael Bloomberg was personally fined.
- derision 7y ago
  i'm not sure most people see "Bloomberg" and think of the person rather than the company
  - gjstein 7y ago
    A month ago I would have agreed with you, but since he announced his candidacy for the American Presidency I'd argue it's become less clear cut.
  - gizmo385 7y ago
    I certainly read this as the person, initially.
  - purple-again 7y ago
    I assumed it was the presidential candidate. Would support a title change to clear up the confusion.
- dang 7y ago
  We changed the title as part of changing the URL to Reuters. Submitted title was "Bloomberg fined $5.6M for publishing fake press release". Actually the originally submitted title was "Bloomberg was taught a $5.6M lesson on factchecking", but the submitter edited it a few minutes later, which was good because that one broke the site guidelines badly. "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
wheelzr 7y ago
Classic case of the carrot and the stick. Freedom of the press radically changed public access to news for the good. Was it too powerful? Back when you had to own a printing press for mass consumption -- No it wasn't. But it is now. The demand for updates and net-new information creates markets for information. There are too many pretenders and pranksters now because there are no barriers to posting on the internet. Until we start breaking down the anonymity of users posting data to indiviuals there will be no one to answer for bad reporting. Punishment should be doled out via the platform posted, similar to FCC going after radio station DJ's and ultimately the broadcast network itself. This will create an underworld for news. The news underworld will need to have a few well known paragons and pranksters to bring a sense of balance and uncertainty to non-regulated news. First step would be to introduce small fines for sites that claim their information is accurate. Classifying and identifying the obvious from NYT/WSJ from Reddit and 4chan. Once the extremes are identified, lessons learned can be applied slowly to the middle of the pack.
- chmod775 7y ago
  There's a permanent reminder above 4chan's most notorious board that "only a fool would take anything posted here as a fact." (or something along those lines). To respond to the entirety of you ludicrous idea: No thanks. This story is an example of why existing regulation already seems to do the job.
googlebigdream 7y ago
And what about when the sitting administration illegally spied on an incoming president?
Scoundreller 7y ago
Isn’t Vinci SA the operator of all those French toll highways that were supposed to be free once construction was paid off, but continued to be tolled anyway?
- 1996 7y ago
  Like in most govt project, I'm sure they found a good excuse for why they were off budget, and thus needed more money. I presume too big to fail works everywhere!
  - axlee 7y ago
    The highways are actually privately operated. The privatization of highways was a big public issue back in the days, with most people against it arguing that it will lead to an increase in prices due to the profit-seeking nature of the operators. Turns out, they were right, and in hindsight, privatization is a failure as far as the highway users are concerned. But please, carry on with your factless dogma.
    - mratsim 7y ago
      In the mean time, public transportation the SNCF railway company is accumulating debts at an amount that would raise brows in a private company. Though I don't have any stance on the private vs public for utilities/healthcare and the like: - public companies are more likely to squander resources due to a backer that cannot default. - private companies are more likely to price gouge captive consumers due to the immense barriers to entry and very few alternatives if any. Pick your poison
- delouvois 7y ago
  Yes, it is. They got a good deal at our expenses following these outrageous privatisation. Meanwhile, some Spanish highways eventually got paid off and are becoming toll-free.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
augbog 7y ago
Damn bloomberg publishing an article about how they themselves got fined? They really milking everything they can from this
user5994461 7y ago
All I am getting from this page is a "Login to read the full article". Surprising that the regulators don't require them to acknowledge and publish that they are being fined. Publicly that is, not behind a pay wall.
Keverw 7y ago
Interesting, didn't know press releases were vetted. I always figured they are just copied and pasted since there's sites where you can pay to syndicate them but not sure how legit that stuff is since never issued a press release, and with many companies running their own blogs wonder if it's even worth doing them anymore? Also kinda reminds me of the lawsuit in Ohio against Facebook. A charter school ran ads, and messed up their attendance count, so other school districts are sueing Facebook trying to recover funds they thought should of went to their school districts instead, which seems like an interesting case but no updates on it in like 6 months, so not sure what the progress is on the case.
ur-whale 7y ago
As an FYI, Vinci is one of the most corrupt companies in France [1], and one of the largest beneficiary of the French equivalent of US pork barrel [2][3][4]. (links are to French language articles) [1] https://reporterre.net/Les-dix-casseroles-de-Vinci-betonneur-de-Notre-Dame-des-Landes https://reporterre.net/Les-dix-casseroles-de-Vinci-betonneur... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel [3] https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/03/DE_LA_CASINIERE/54958 https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/03/DE_LA_CASINIERE/54... [4] https://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soir/veolia-vinci-bouygues-eiffage-le-reveil-des-juges-contre-la-corruption-en-france_482530 https://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soir/veolia-vinci-bouyg...

349 points by ComodoHacker 7y ago

singularity2001 7y ago

Doesn't this violate the freedom of speech?

zmzrr 7y ago
I am not saying it necessarily applies to this case, but France, like all countries in the EU, does not have actual freedom of speech.
- chki 7y ago
  That's not true. At least not for the common definitions of "freedom of speech".
  - zmzrr 7y ago
    There are blasphemy laws for instance. Right to be forgotten. Etc.
    - chki 7y ago
      Which means that freedom of speech is (in some cases) limited because of the religious freedom of others. It doesn't mean that freedom of speech doesn't exist, it means that the "balancing exercise" between certain Rights is performed differently. Edit: There is no state in the world where there exists some sort of "absolute freedom of speech".
      - slynn12 7y ago
        Agreed ^. The classic example of screaming fire in a movie theater...
  - swebs 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with French law. Can you point to us where it explicitly grants freedom of speech?
    - chki 7y ago
      I'm also not familiar with French law but this https://www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/france.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/france.php seems to be a good resource. One thing I am familiar with is the European Convention on Human Rights which grants Freedom of speech in Article 10 and which is binding in France.
  - dgellow 7y ago
    The "freedom of speech" discussed here is a legal concept, known as the 1st amendment of the US constitution. The common definition isn't really relevant. And it's true that France doesn't actually have such a thing guaranteed by the law. The closest you have is "liberté d'expression" which isn't as broad as "freedom of speech" in the US sense, and doesn't guarantee the same level of freedom.
    - chki 7y ago
      It's not clear to me why "actual freedom of speech" should be equal to what is guaranteed by the US constitution. That would be like me saying "The US doesn't have the 'Right to Life'" because I'm exclusively applying the European definition of that term. Freedom of expression/freedom of speech is guaranteed in some way in all Western nations, the difference – as you correctly point out – is the degree to which other rights are also taken into account when applying the Right to freedom of speech. But that's an extremely important distinction and it cannot be said that France doesn't have Freedom of speech.
- dgellow 7y ago
  It's ... complicated. France does have a concept of "liberté d'expression" (literally "freedom of speech"), but it isn't equivalent to the US 1st amendment. That won't help you if you don't read french, but you can see here that while the "Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen" from 1789 has a concept somehow similar to "freedom of speech", a lot of exceptions have been created since then. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9_d%27expression#En_France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9_d%27expression#En... In practice you're correct that France doesn't have what US citizen mean by "freedom of speech". Though that becomes messy because the literal translation of the expression actually exists in the law, but with a different meaning.
  - zmzrr 7y ago
    Yes, I agree. I don't like to bring up the boogeyman of the year, but China also has a concept of freedom of speech, and see how it works for them. Just saying you have it doesn't mean anything when there are lots of exceptions. Blasphemy laws are an example. Absolute freedom of speech is indeed not existent anywhere, and probably impractical. But US-level freedom of speech is fine (which is what we usually talk about when we say "freedom of speech"), and France does not have that.
IanDrake 7y ago
I think you mean freedom of the press? Libel is still illegal. Frankly, the problem with the press in the US is that it's lost all credibility and is mostly filled with activist instead of journalists.
swebs 7y ago
The French constitution does not guarantee Freedom of Speech. That is a uniquely American thing.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  Eh. The original philosophy, liberalism, is European in origin, including some notable French contributions.
- decebalus1 7y ago
  American exceptionalism is a uniquely American thing. Freedom of speech in the constitution is not. Even Cuba has freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution.

danso 7y ago

Here's a non-paywalled version via Reuters (who, it should be said, is a Bloomberg competitor in the financial news space): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-amf-bloomberg/frances-amf-watchdog-fines-bloomberg-5-million-over-vinci-hoax-idUSKBN1YK1VN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-amf-bloomberg/fran... Here's a more in-depth explanation from 2017 (the incident happened in 2016): https://www.complianceweek.com/the-vinci-code-fake-news-press-releases/9877.article https://www.complianceweek.com/the-vinci-code-fake-news-pres...

dang 7y ago
We've changed to the Reuters article from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/bloomberg-lp-fined-5-6-million-in-french-case-over-hoax-release https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/bloomberg-lp-fi.... Thanks!

cs702 7y ago

Why are mass purveyors of anti-news and propaganda on the Internet not fined like this?

rc_mob 7y ago
rtfa fine is from France, not USA

aneutron 7y ago

SuperMicro, if you're listening ....

ferdek 7y ago
I was willing to bet before opening the link that it's about SuperMicro. I would lost the bet ;)

the_duke 7y ago

In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains: * list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc ) * a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of information, only that the addendum is representative of the research done) * A hash of a archive file containing all collected information (including interview transcripts/notes, etc) with a responsibility to keep this archive for X years and to provide it to regulators on request; info can be anonymized/redacted as deemed necessary Combine this with a fine for the publication if they failed to verify information with a reasonable effort, and it could do a lot of good for the world of news. Of course all regulation comes with pitfalls, and there are many with this idea, especially with the fine aspect. Probably enough to make it undesirable. But it is the only one I have to improve things. Edit: Since this has been mentioned: it's possible to allow anonymous sources, but eg with the rule that anonymization has to be justified and may not be abused. But this feeds into the biggest problem with the whole idea: a fine can give regulators too much power to punish publications arbitrarily.

scarejunba 7y ago
Fascinating. So that’s how well-intentioned people kill the free press.
- nickpp 7y ago
  Regulations. How well-intentioned people kill every free thing.
mar77i 7y ago
Only because there doesn't seem any way to fuck this up right now, doesn't mean there, in fact, isn't. The ongoing pattern is that "at the time it seemed like the right thing to publish", when in fact it's just about spinning the spin. You can't prove how certain the publishers were about their spin at the time of publishing, not even with your suggested solution, that I guess, would only get more journalists fired, and last time I checked there's already plenty of that. Like how Snopes' fact checker seemed like a good idea, before they started getting things wrong too now and then. I mean, of course, it's not likely there's a holy grail solution and we're stuck in having to evaluate every day anew, which sources we trust and which we don't. Regarding the part where spinning the spin is at least followed up by corrections and apologies - which few people read, anyway, after the damage is done, but there's NewsGuard, which does fairly technical editorial rating, which i find a very good idea.

octocop 7y ago

whats beyond the pay wall?

neya 7y ago

Bloomberg literally compensates its writers for moving markets. So, the super micro case, this one and many others before these..no surprises here.

lawrenceyan 7y ago
It seems like that would make it extremely to keep journalistic integrity while working under such a compensation / commission structure. How are you supposed to trust a Bloomberg article when the writers are designing them specifically in a way to try and purposely move the market? They would have every incentive to exaggerate, embellish, and even go so far as lie as shown in this instance.
- kevinmchugh 7y ago
  They also had an incentive to ignore or deprioritize stale or low impact stories. The bonuses required that the market impact be durable, and the stories still had to be edited to fit house style.
vonmoltke 7y ago
No, they literally don't. In the past reporters got bonuses for the number of market-moving stories they broke, but that was predicated on the stories being accurate. That bonus program is no longer extant.

danso 7y ago

Here's an article from 2016 that seems to contemporaneously describe the incident at hand: https://web.archive.org/web/20161123142234/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/vinci-says-builder-isn-t-revising-acccounts-cfo-isn-t-fired https://web.archive.org/web/20161123142234/https://www.bloom... > Vinci SA fell victim to a fake release claiming the French builder had fired its finance chief amid accounting irregularities, prompting the stock to plunge before the company denied the report. > Bloomberg News was among the few news organizations to report from the false statement. > “We are a victim of a hoax,” spokesman Paul-Alexis Bouquet said on Tuesday, denying that the Paris-based company had released any statement. Although the company’s website hadn’t been hacked, technically speaking, fake statements had been sent in the company’s name, he said. > Investors were caught off guard after the publication of a release saying that Vinci had discovered an accounting error and had fired Chief Financial Officer Christian Labeyrie. The shares plunged 18 percent, the most in more than 17 years, before Bouquet said the report was false. Vinci will file a complaint about the incident, the spokesman said.

La1n 7y ago
> “We are a victim of a hoax,” Vinci was the victim of a hoax, Bloomberg was happy to report it without doing enough fact checking, they were spreading and part of the hoax.
- danso 7y ago
  If the Vinci website itself had been hacked, and the faux press release distributed from there, Bloomberg would obviously have a strong case. That doesn't seem to be the situation though, and so I'm curious to what channel this fake press release came through, e.g. a spoof email or Twitter account.
  - etage3 7y ago
    Bloomberg received a release from vinci.group instead of vinci.com according to Le Monde's article. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/12/16/l-agence-de-presse-bloomberg-sanctionnee-pour-avoir-diffuse-de-fausses-nouvelles-a-la-bourse-de-paris_6023101_3234.html https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/12/16/l-agence-...

fbn79 7y ago

Do you remember the Bloomberg article about Big China Chip Hack? About Apple was been refuted, debunked, and ridiculed. See https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/04/editorial-a-year-later-bloomberg-silently-stands-by-its-big-hack-icloud-spy-chip-story https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/04/editorial-a-year-...

aguyfromnb 7y ago
This story is so odd to me. On the one hand, if true, all Bloomberg had to do was produce evidence; a single compromised server. They didn't. On the other hand, if the journalists fabricated the entire story, saying that all these big companies were hacked, why didn't anybody sue them? It was a major accusation! It just kinda...disappeared.
- austhrow743 7y ago
  >It just kinda...disappeared. This might be the answer to you second question. No one seems to have taken the Bloomberg story to be true. Just went "that's dumb" and dropped it. In fact the only times I've ever seen it resurface is in a context to point out something negative about Bloomberg (like now), not the companies named in the article. Sort of like the Elon Musk defamation case that just ended. Plaintiff didn't get anything because people didn't turn on him due to the accusation, they turned on Elon. If it's not believed then you couldn't have suffered harm.
  - CrazyStat 7y ago
    Super Micro's stock dropped about 30% and took months to recover.
    - privateprofile 7y ago
      And was there any legal action from Super Micro or other affected parties, like in this case?
    - r00fus 7y ago

C1sc0cat 7y ago

So Bloomberg got caught out by a fake press release and got fined - what happened to the originator of the fake press release? France has a problem /history with anonymous poison pen letters. Sounds to me like some one was settling scores and Bloomberg got caught I doubt that a French equivalent of Bloomberg would have been fined.

_eLRIC 7y ago
French press can be fined, don't worry, i.e C8 3M€ in 2017, Amaury press group 3.5 M€ un 2015 On that very case, no one can tell.

coldcode 7y ago

There is no real penalty for publishing fake news as if it was truth. Whole websites and media companies do it as a matter of course (often for political or manipulative purposes). 5.6M to Bloomberg is pocket change. There are of course still journalists with a burning desire to report the truth, but it's far easier and profitable to ignore it today. When the internet started we all thought that the truth would finally prevail only to find out the non-truth is easier to amplify.

dgellow 7y ago
> There is no real penalty for publishing fake news as if it was truth I'm not sure what you mean here. If you publish fake information about a public company, couldn't that be considered security fraud by the SEC? I'm not an expert at all, and don't know the details of what is or isn't actually considered a security fraud, so I may be completely off here. If we are talking about the more general idea of "fake news", since 2018 France has a law "against the manipulation of information": https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/against-information-manipulation https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/against-information-manipulat....
auiya 7y ago
> There is no real penalty for publishing fake news as if it was truth This depends on what country in which you operate. Many countries have made publishing fake news illegal. > When the internet started we all thought that the truth would finally prevail only to find out the non-truth is easier to amplify. When the Internet started, we didn't realize it would be commercialized so heavily that basically 3-4 companies control it all.

knorker 7y ago

Why? Didn't Fox News set a precedent when they won that lawsuit and courts agreed they had the right to lie in the news? Edit: Oh, because it's no the US.

kecupochren 7y ago
That's crazy
s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
Even Snopes knows that's false. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ But nice try...
- knorker 7y ago
  Thanks for the correction! I wish I could edit my comment. :-(
- cabaalis 7y ago
  This shows why fake information is so powerful. No wonder it's used in politics.

wheybags 7y ago

My trust of bloomberg has been pretty low since the spy chip story, that seems to have been just a hoax. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...

privateprofile 7y ago
Any guesses to why aren't Super Micro or other affected parties taking legal action, if it was a hoax like what's reported in this case?
- tick_tock_tick 7y ago
  Being in the news several more times for a case about "spy chips" in your hardware isn't worth any money they'd get?
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    Bingo. Fighting it would just preserve the Streisand effect. There doesn't appear to have been any material impact from where I sit, and there haven't been any further stories along the same lines.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Generally, when a company doesn't sue over something like this, it's because they don't have a case. And that always means that enough of the allegations are true that they couldn't win an absolutely massive judgement in court. Because in the US, truth is an absolute defense to the defamation torts. (The same is not truth in the UK; you can still be liable for defamation even if everything you said is true. See, e.g., the case of the Nazi-fetishist MP.) The Streisand effect is not a thing companies worry about. Because more brand damage = more monetary damages to collect.
- analyst74 7y ago
  Large commercial lawsuits are like investment, you invest precious resources into a lawsuit that may or may not pay off. It's entirely reasonable for a company to decide that it's not worth the investment and not pursue. And to refer back to this article, it's the French AMF fined Bloomberg, Vinci only had to file a complaint, not a full lawsuit with teams of lawyers.

stevespang 7y ago

Bloomberg is a libtard publisher, glad to see them fined.

tarcyanm 7y ago

Bloomberg is unique in being somewhat independent of the AP-AFP-Reuters stranglehold that is described with appropriate skepticism here: https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/ https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/ It would be interesting if that independence were regarded as a threat.

humanrebar 7y ago

The headline probably needs qualification that the fine was in Europe, not the U.S. I was shocked that any U.S. regulator would attempt to push against the First Amendment in this way. It's a different story with more context.

damq 7y ago
+1. In order for this to be punishable in the US, they would have had to have known this press release was fake before publishing it which would be a much different story. The headline should be updated to say they were fined by France.
close04 7y ago
> push against the First Amendment This isn't a freedom of speech issue since obviously they were free to say whatever they wanted, lies and misinformation included. This doesn't imply freedom from consequences. Causing a company to lose 18% value because they couldn't be bothered to verify is negligence, incompetence, or malice (or a combination) not freedom of speech and it's only fair to receive a fine. Bloomberg is making a habit of such reporting.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- comex 7y ago
  It is a freedom of speech issue, at least from a US perspective. Whether newspapers can be held liable for inadvertently publishing false information was the exact issue at hand in New York Times v. Sullivan, a case which is one of the foundations of modern First Amendment jurisprudence. It held that, in almost all circumstances, they cannot.
  - close04 7y ago
    I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. Inadvertent implies no intention, accidental. Bloomberg did zero due diligence with regard to this information, no attempt to validate it or the source was done before publishing. This resulted in market manipulation and that is punishable by law. Newspapers could always publish anything by just saying "I found it on the internet". Which is obviously not the case. The free speech and free press clauses protect public media as much as individual persons but what you say on social media will still be used against you. And talking about freedom of press, France doesn't look that bad at all. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

MarkMc 7y ago

I initially thought Michael Bloomberg had issued a fake press release. Title should really be "Bloomberg LP fined..." to distinguish the company from the man.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nstj 7y ago

@dang - arguably misleading title, please consider renaming to “Bloomberg LP fined €5m for publishing fake press release”. Current title can be read that Michael Bloomberg was personally fined.

derision 7y ago
i'm not sure most people see "Bloomberg" and think of the person rather than the company
- gjstein 7y ago
  A month ago I would have agreed with you, but since he announced his candidacy for the American Presidency I'd argue it's become less clear cut.
- gizmo385 7y ago
  I certainly read this as the person, initially.
- purple-again 7y ago
  I assumed it was the presidential candidate. Would support a title change to clear up the confusion.
dang 7y ago
We changed the title as part of changing the URL to Reuters. Submitted title was "Bloomberg fined $5.6M for publishing fake press release". Actually the originally submitted title was "Bloomberg was taught a $5.6M lesson on factchecking", but the submitter edited it a few minutes later, which was good because that one broke the site guidelines badly. "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

wheelzr 7y ago

Classic case of the carrot and the stick. Freedom of the press radically changed public access to news for the good. Was it too powerful? Back when you had to own a printing press for mass consumption -- No it wasn't. But it is now. The demand for updates and net-new information creates markets for information. There are too many pretenders and pranksters now because there are no barriers to posting on the internet. Until we start breaking down the anonymity of users posting data to indiviuals there will be no one to answer for bad reporting. Punishment should be doled out via the platform posted, similar to FCC going after radio station DJ's and ultimately the broadcast network itself. This will create an underworld for news. The news underworld will need to have a few well known paragons and pranksters to bring a sense of balance and uncertainty to non-regulated news. First step would be to introduce small fines for sites that claim their information is accurate. Classifying and identifying the obvious from NYT/WSJ from Reddit and 4chan. Once the extremes are identified, lessons learned can be applied slowly to the middle of the pack.

chmod775 7y ago
There's a permanent reminder above 4chan's most notorious board that "only a fool would take anything posted here as a fact." (or something along those lines). To respond to the entirety of you ludicrous idea: No thanks. This story is an example of why existing regulation already seems to do the job.

googlebigdream 7y ago

And what about when the sitting administration illegally spied on an incoming president?

Scoundreller 7y ago

Isn’t Vinci SA the operator of all those French toll highways that were supposed to be free once construction was paid off, but continued to be tolled anyway?

1996 7y ago
Like in most govt project, I'm sure they found a good excuse for why they were off budget, and thus needed more money. I presume too big to fail works everywhere!
- axlee 7y ago
  The highways are actually privately operated. The privatization of highways was a big public issue back in the days, with most people against it arguing that it will lead to an increase in prices due to the profit-seeking nature of the operators. Turns out, they were right, and in hindsight, privatization is a failure as far as the highway users are concerned. But please, carry on with your factless dogma.
  - mratsim 7y ago
    In the mean time, public transportation the SNCF railway company is accumulating debts at an amount that would raise brows in a private company. Though I don't have any stance on the private vs public for utilities/healthcare and the like: - public companies are more likely to squander resources due to a backer that cannot default. - private companies are more likely to price gouge captive consumers due to the immense barriers to entry and very few alternatives if any. Pick your poison
delouvois 7y ago
Yes, it is. They got a good deal at our expenses following these outrageous privatisation. Meanwhile, some Spanish highways eventually got paid off and are becoming toll-free.
- Scoundreller 7y ago

augbog 7y ago

Damn bloomberg publishing an article about how they themselves got fined? They really milking everything they can from this

user5994461 7y ago

All I am getting from this page is a "Login to read the full article". Surprising that the regulators don't require them to acknowledge and publish that they are being fined. Publicly that is, not behind a pay wall.

Keverw 7y ago

Interesting, didn't know press releases were vetted. I always figured they are just copied and pasted since there's sites where you can pay to syndicate them but not sure how legit that stuff is since never issued a press release, and with many companies running their own blogs wonder if it's even worth doing them anymore? Also kinda reminds me of the lawsuit in Ohio against Facebook. A charter school ran ads, and messed up their attendance count, so other school districts are sueing Facebook trying to recover funds they thought should of went to their school districts instead, which seems like an interesting case but no updates on it in like 6 months, so not sure what the progress is on the case.

ur-whale 7y ago

As an FYI, Vinci is one of the most corrupt companies in France [1], and one of the largest beneficiary of the French equivalent of US pork barrel [2][3][4]. (links are to French language articles) [1] https://reporterre.net/Les-dix-casseroles-de-Vinci-betonneur-de-Notre-Dame-des-Landes https://reporterre.net/Les-dix-casseroles-de-Vinci-betonneur... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel [3] https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/03/DE_LA_CASINIERE/54958 https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/03/DE_LA_CASINIERE/54... [4] https://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soir/veolia-vinci-bouygues-eiffage-le-reveil-des-juges-contre-la-corruption-en-france_482530 https://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soir/veolia-vinci-bouyg...