3 ms·
> Why would those changes be outside the FTC's "comfort zone"? I am also confused. Perhaps foregoign Ad-tech revenue would be against the supposed fiduciary du
by systemvoltage 5y ago
> Why would those changes be outside the FTC's "comfort zone"?
I am also confused. Perhaps foregoign Ad-tech revenue would be against the supposed fiduciary duty?
- ByteJockey 5y agoThat's really only an issue if enough of the shareholders decide to sue or you're straight up abusing your position (i.e. embezzling). Otherwise, you can always make some stuff up about it being a long-term strategy. But, fundamentally, making a bad call isn't a violation of fiduciary duty (unless there's documents saying you know it will tank beforehand and you do it anyway).
- skissane 5y agoThat would also be an issue for the SEC, not the FTC.
- ByteJockey 5y agoA fair point. I'm not sure how the FTC would be involved here. My understanding is that the exchange between twitter and most of its users doesn't rise to the legal designation of "trade" (excluding twitter blue users, of course), unless the OP meant the FTC would get involved between Twitter and their advertisers.