3 ms·
Might still be coming... But a particular bad mark in Facebook's case was Palmer stating, as a representative of the company, that they would never require a F
by ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Might still be coming...
But a particular bad mark in Facebook's case was Palmer stating, as a representative of the company, that they would never require a Facebook account. Consumers might've bought the product based on that statement.
- metalliqaz 6y agoPalmer wasn't lying when he said that. Facebook was lying to Palmer. Of course, savvy users didn't believe him anyway. Zuck: "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoWho was lying isn't material. That Palmer clearly stated Facebook authorized him to make that commitment is all that matters. So it's very hard for Facebook to now go around and claim they didn't promise that. Palmer, at the time, acting on behalf of Facebook, made that promise. And that probably puts this case in a much more solid legal territory than, for example, Nest.