←back to thread

Meta antitrust trial kicks off in federal court

(www.axios.com)
431 points c420 | 4 comments | 14 Apr 25 13:18 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
alex1138 ◴[14 Apr 25 19:16 UTC] No.43685044[source]▶
I think Whatsapp is the clearest possible case that can be made of any company? They violated the condition of not sharing user data with Facebook

Willing to listen to other opinions on other companies, but surely Whatsapp

replies(2): >>43685346 #>>43689493 #
changoplatanero ◴[14 Apr 25 19:38 UTC] No.43685346[source]▶
That was a voluntary pledge the company made to the users, right? It wasn't a legally binding commitment that there would never ever be any data sharing.
replies(2): >>43685616 #>>43686366 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[14 Apr 25 19:58 UTC] No.43685616[source]▶
Dear Users, in our Terms of Service, we tell you that we won't share your data.

Psych, it wasn't legally binding.

replies(1): >>43685787 #
1. fallingknife ◴[14 Apr 25 20:11 UTC] No.43685787[source]▶
Correct. A promise is not legally binding unless there is some sort of payment in return. The exception is if you can prove you suffered monetary damages from relying on that promise, which is basically impossible for data sharing.
replies(3): >>43686087 #>>43686205 #>>43687716 #
2. lovich ◴[14 Apr 25 20:41 UTC] No.43686087[source]▶
I can't sell my data to willing buyers for the same price anymore, because Meta illegally shared my data which reduced its value, and that's on top of the lost revenue I could have made selling my data to Meta if I was whatsapp only user.

Oh wait, I forgot those arguments only apply when companies are getting the government to go after people sharing files

3. JumpCrisscross ◴[14 Apr 25 20:53 UTC] No.43686205[source]▶
> promise is not legally binding unless there is some sort of payment in return

If I recall correctly, I gave them a worldwide, perpetual license to some data.

> if you can prove you suffered monetary damages

This is a separate question (that of calculating damages) from that of whether there was a breach per se.

4. BobaFloutist ◴[15 Apr 25 00:16 UTC] No.43687716[source]▶
Is it not at the very least false advertising?