Zuckerberg settles lawsuit over Cambridge Analytica scandal
A trial over the long-running case had just begun on Wednesday, with defendants accused of overpaying the US government in 2019 when they engineered a $5 billion settlement for alleged privacy violations in the scandal.
Sources familiar with the matter confirmed the settlement to AFP, without providing details.
A spokesman for Meta, the parent company of Facebook, declined to comment. Lawyers for the defendants and shareholders didn't immediately return requests for comment.
The settlement comes the same day that Marc Andreessen, one of Silicon Valley's most influential venture capitalists and a Meta board member, was scheduled to take the stand.
Zuckerberg himself was expected in the Wilmington, Delaware courtroom on Monday.
Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel and former Meta top executive Sheryl Sandberg -- both former board members -- were also expected to face questioning in the court.
Cambridge Analytica was a political consulting firm that was found to have improperly accessed personal data from millions of Facebook users for targeted political advertising, particularly during the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum.
The scandal thrust Facebook and Zuckerberg in particular into a political firestorm, leading to major regulatory changes and public scrutiny of tech companies' data practices.
The shareholders in the lawsuit alleged that the board members conspired to pay more to the US government in exchange for ensuring that Zuckerberg would not be named personally for wrongdoing in the settlement.
- High-profile case -
Longtime observers of the company were hoping that the trial would expose inside details of how Zuckerberg and the Facebook executives handled the scandal.
"This settlement may bring relief to the parties involved, but it's a missed opportunity for public accountability," said Jason Kint, the head of Digital Content Next, a trade group for content providers.
He worried that Meta "has successfully remade the 'Cambridge Analytica' scandal about a few bad actors rather than an unraveling of its entire business model of surveillance capitalism and the reciprocal, unbridled sharing of personal data."
Zuckerberg was under huge pressure at the time from US and European lawmakers amid widespread allegations that Russia and other bad actors were weaponizing Facebook to sow chaos around major elections in the West.
The multi-faceted case also alleged insider trading at the time of the events, with board members to be questioned about the timing of their share sales before the scandal erupted.
The high-profile case was expected to bring further attention to Delaware, the state that many US companies choose for incorporation due to its highly specialized courts.
The trial was presided over and to be decided by Kathaleen McCormick, the same judge who last year rejected Elon Musk's multi-billion pay package at Tesla.
By Alex Pigman
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
Why do courts need to protect children?
Why are those platforms not playing ball, and why does it take going to court to force them to — especially when it's about protecting children? As the legal upper guardian of all children, the high court really delivered in its action against Meta. It's frightening that the Digital Law Company had to go to court to deal with Instagram profiles and WhatsApp channels disseminating child sexual content, but I guess some privacy is more important than others? Take nothing away from the massive achievement this is for protecting children, and thank goodness for the existence of the Digital Law Company, which ran this matter with urgency. What are social media giants doing to stop the filth? This is a victory to be celebrated. Once the dust settles, the difficult questions need to be put to the social media giants: why was going to court necessary? Our cyber laws really do go a long way in making these kinds of activities criminal and placing legal obligations on those who have control over the platforms to prevent and report. Not only do we have laws for these things, but the user policies of these platforms also prohibit child sexual content. So even if South Africa was blind to the existence of child abuse, which thankfully it is not, these platforms are self-obligated to deal with the matter. And yet, here we are, having to take up court time to deal with something that should never have happened, and when it did, should have taken less than a phone call to remove. Let police and prosecutors work What I'm so appreciative of is that the focus on the settlement agreement turned order doesn't allow for the immediate publicity of the details of the perpetrators. This may seem counterintuitive, but it is actually in line with a well-considered standard of care. Sometimes, the children involved can be identified when the accused is identified, and sometimes, there is collateral reputational damage to innocent people when names are simply released. Allowing the specialised investigative unit and prosecuting authority to build a case will likely eventually reveal the names, but in a responsible way that will take into consideration the welfare of the kids and the possibility of re-traumatising them. But again, why did the court need to get involved? Why is there a need for a hotline between the Digital Law Company and Meta? As great a result as that is, why must it come down to reporting before anything is done? If Google can identify that I have an illegal copy of The Jungle Book on my GDrive, I don't think it's a far stretch to build AI models that can detect language that suggests child pornography or abuse. Make it make sense why a legal team has to run to court to protect children from people who are not only breaking the law, but also breaching the terms and conditions of the platforms they're using to hurt children. Why are those platforms not playing ball, and why does it take going to court to force them to … especially in the interest of protecting children? Perhaps they don't want the bad publicity, or perhaps they don't want to admit that things are as bad as they are. ALSO READ: Meta complies, shuts down Instagram accounts and WhatsApp channels posting sexual content of SA school children Here's a different suggestion. Nobody is going to argue against the existence of bad people. Bad people will always be around. I think that's something we can safely say society has accepted a long time ago. If we can admit that, then there's no reason why Meta can't say we want to keep bad people off our platforms. There's no reputational damage to any platform for accepting that sometimes they'll get some awful person as a user, but then they apply their terms of service, report the person, and now that person is locked up. We already know creeps are on every available platform. That's not going to be what causes the reputational damage in future. What will cause reputational damage is knowing that those platforms will try to put their own name before the safety of our children. Emma, Ben, Rorke. Take a number of bows, and thanks for putting in the effort to protect our kids, even when you shouldn't have to. NOW READ: Parents, use these Instagram tools to keep your teens safe online
The Citizen
18 hours ago
- The Citizen
Public trust in SAPS falls to lowest levels in 27 years, survey shows
Public trust in SAPS falls to lowest levels in 27 years, survey shows The allegations levelled against senior national police executives by KZN provincial commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi have caused the SAPS' public trust to dip. Zululand Observer reports that research released last Friday by the Human Sciences Research Council's South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS) shows trust levels have remained relatively low – and not once in 27 years have more than half the adult public trusted the police. This suggests the issue of police legitimacy is by no means new. From 1998 to 2010, the average level of trust in the police was relatively static, ranging between 39% and 42%. This was followed by a sharp decline between 2011 and 2013, after the Marikana massacre in August 2012. Confidence had almost returned to the 2011 level by the 2015 survey. The 2016–2020 period was characterised by modest fluctuations between 31% and 35%. The hard lockdown during the Covid-19 pandemic, which included instances of police brutality in enforcing lockdown regulations, appears to have further dented confidence, based on the 2020 survey results. In 2021, public trust in the police dipped to an all-time low of 27%, reportedly linked to the July 2021 social unrest in KZN when many criticised SAPS' poor performance. This was followed by a further 5% drop to 22% in 2022, with 2023 and 2024–25 confidence levels almost unchanged, possibly reflecting rising rates for certain crimes. The 2022, 2023 and 2024–25 figures are the lowest recorded in 27 years. The full report and figures can be accessed here. Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Transport Department eliminates fees and fines for motorists with expired driving licences
The Transport Ministerial and Members Executive Council meeting held on June 27 resolved to waive the payment of the R72.00 for temporary driving licence card when motorists renew their driving licence cards. Image: Facebook The Transport Department has bowed to pressure from advocacy groups by waiving fees associated with temporary driving licence cards and halting penalties for motorists caught driving with expired licences. The decision comes as many motorists find themselves awaiting the renewal of their driving licences amidst significant backlogs in production after the department's card printing machine broke down in February. Lobby group, Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse, has been arguing that fining motorists who are still waiting for their renewed card licences was unfair. Minister Barbara Crecy said the backlog stood at 635,976 as at June 23, down from 733,000 when its card production machine became operational in May. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Creecy said the card production facility has, since the machine became operational, embarked on working overtime to wipe out the backlog. 'The facility, with the support of the department, is in the process of obtaining approval from the Department of Public Service and Administration for additional overtime work hours for 24 hours a day to catch up on the backlog,' she said. Creecy was responding to parliamentary questions posed by EFF MP Omphile Maotwe. She said motorists were urged to keep their old cards and apply for temporary driving licences to avoid being penalised by law enforcement officers should they be pulled over. 'Motorists can drive with an expired driving licence card for up to three months before being eligible to be fined, provided they can show proof that they applied for a new card before their current expires. "If their card had already expired when at the time of application for replacement, they must also apply for a temporary driver's licence as the time and keep proof thereof in the vehicle.' Creecy also said The Transport Ministerial and Members Executive Council meeting held on June 27 resolved to waive the payment of the R72.00 for temporary driving licence card when motorists renew their driving licence cards. 'It was further resolved to impose a moratorium not to penalise motorists who drive their vehicles with expired driving licence cards and have proof when stopped by a law enforcement officer that they have applied for or renewed their driving licence card until a replacement card is issued.' Responding to DA MP Chris Hunsinger, Creecy said her department was in the process of acquiring an interim solution with the Government Printing Works as a solution to the obsolete card production machine. She also said the permanent solution will be the procurement of a new driving licence card production machine. 'However, that process cannot be embarked upon until finalisation of the declaratory order process,' she said. 'The procurement of a new driving licence machine remains in the procurement plan of the Driving Licence Card Account. The department has approached a competent court for a declaratory order. It is only after that process has been completed that procurement of a card machine will be started,' she said in response to Freedom Front Plus MP Philip van Staden. Last September, the department announced Idemia Identity and Security - South Africa as the preferred bidder to produce new smart driving licence cards. However, the contract was put on ice when Creecy asked the Auditor-General to investigate allegations of an irregular procurement process. In papers filed in court, the department wants the court to set aside the Idemia contract, re-run the tender and allow the Department of Home Affairs to print the licence cards in the interim.
