I mean if you move the goal posts then sure but the argument was about if the activity occurred which it does. --- FB has never claimed (in court) that CA vio

I mean if you move the goal posts then sure but the argument was about if the activity occurred which it does. --- FB has never claimed (in court) that CA violated any agreements they had with them. The only comments they've made are PR speak to obscure the fact that CA acted within the rules (hence why FB needed to update the rules). The only court cases that arose are against FB* for sharing data with CA they shouldn't've. Per-FB's policy there are only a few things worth talking about. > (7) If you use any partner services, make them sign a contract to protect any information you obtained from us, limit their use of that information, and keep it confidential. > (9) Don't sell, license, or purchase any data obtained from us or our services. > (10) Don't transfer any data that you receive from us (including anonymous, aggregate, or derived data) to any ad network, data broker or other advertising or monetization-related service. 7 - This is my understand as to what happened. CA didn't turn around and release this data. 9 - Doesn't apply as nobody claims Kogan sold the data to CA. 10 - Doesn't apply as CA isn't these things. * Technically the FTC did also against CA but it was literally _just_ because CA also recorded the User's FB ID [2]. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180329131546/https://developers.facebook.com/policy https://web.archive.org/web/20180329131546/https://developer... [2]: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/12/ftc-grants-final-approval-settlement-former-cambridge-analytica-ceo-app-developer-over-allegations https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/12/...