3 ms·

This seems like a surprisingly specific allegation: >> They claim the bribes were routed from OnlyFans’ parent company, Fenix International, through a secret H

This seems like a surprisingly specific allegation: >> They claim the bribes were routed from OnlyFans’ parent company, Fenix International, through a secret Hong Kong subsidiary into offshore Philippines bank accounts set up by the crooked Meta employees, potentially including at least one unnamed senior executive. If that's true, how would they know? And if not, why would they think they know it?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yieldcrv 4y ago
a secret Hong Kong subsidiary would have a non-secret name, do any of the court filings name it? if so, why not the journalist? kickbacks to big tech employees isn't new or novel, just curious about why the omission of details
mr_toad 4y ago
> If that's true, how would they know? Someone ratted them out?
sio8ohPi 4y ago
They don't. Read claims 75-85: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3629&context=historical https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... Note that "on information and belief" is lawyeresse for "we don't know this is true, we only have suspicion". Claims 76, 77, 82, and 85 (as well as a lot of the complaint) are so hedged. The claims they're not hedging are more limited: basically "Meta employees were paid to update a database of dangerous individuals and organizations, and Meta shared this database with others (75)" and "OnlyFans' parent company Fenix has a presence in Hong Kong and other countries (78-81)". Claims 76, 77, 82, and 85 must be true... because the alternative would be devastating to their case /s. There is very little of substance in the complaint. In all seriousness, I think plaintiffs have read public sentiment against tech companies, and I imagine their strategy here is to throw as much mud as they can, bamboozle some credulous journalists, and hope Meta et al settle to avoid bad PR.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yieldcrv 4y ago

a secret Hong Kong subsidiary would have a non-secret name, do any of the court filings name it? if so, why not the journalist? kickbacks to big tech employees isn't new or novel, just curious about why the omission of details

mr_toad 4y ago

> If that's true, how would they know? Someone ratted them out?

sio8ohPi 4y ago

They don't. Read claims 75-85: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3629&context=historical https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... Note that "on information and belief" is lawyeresse for "we don't know this is true, we only have suspicion". Claims 76, 77, 82, and 85 (as well as a lot of the complaint) are so hedged. The claims they're not hedging are more limited: basically "Meta employees were paid to update a database of dangerous individuals and organizations, and Meta shared this database with others (75)" and "OnlyFans' parent company Fenix has a presence in Hong Kong and other countries (78-81)". Claims 76, 77, 82, and 85 must be true... because the alternative would be devastating to their case /s. There is very little of substance in the complaint. In all seriousness, I think plaintiffs have read public sentiment against tech companies, and I imagine their strategy here is to throw as much mud as they can, bamboozle some credulous journalists, and hope Meta et al settle to avoid bad PR.