Facebook will not acknowledge any wrongdoing as part of the settlement....Which is what I expect the script to read.
If the settlement happens, I imagine this would provide some weight behind any class action lawsuit.
If the settlement happens, I imagine this would provide some weight behind any class action lawsuit.
This bugs the heck out of me (in general, not specific to this case). What is point of letting them claim innocence? How does this benefit the consumer?
I can see occasional exceptions where it's clearly a case of misunderstandings so you don't want to bring down the full hammer...but I honestly can't remember more than one such case where someone DID acknowledge wrongdoing.
The title of this post/story, should be "Facebook Expects to be Fined Not More Than $5B by FTC," because a $5B fine would be extremely not-painful; there would be zero deterrent effect from a fine of this size.
It changes the evidentiary basis of future claims on related grounds. The admission opens them up to other legal risks outside of the current dispute.
Maybe European regulators want to slap them for the same fact pattern (same facts, different jurisdiction). Maybe a class action is put together (same facts, different plaintiffs). Maybe they have an HR suit for unlawful termination from one of their security guys claiming he was fired for disclosing a vulnerability (related facts).
Etc.
Well that's interesting...citation? I thought not admitting any wrongdoing meant that you didn't admit it, meaning that there'd be no lower bar for anything, related grounds or not.