Meta chief legal officer C.J. Mahoney criticized the penalty, saying in a statement that the company is “confident” that it will “prevail on appeal.”
“This ruling, and the Attorney General’s approach to this enforcement, makes it all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico,” Mahoney said in the statement. “At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online.”
Meta chief legal officer C.J. Mahoney criticized the penalty, saying in a statement that the company is “confident” that it will “prevail on appeal.”
Sometimes I laugh at these statements because they have no substance or authority, it's just BS.
Because lets be honest, as a Chief Legal Officer of Meta, what else would you say? "We're not very confident we're going to win the appeal, but we'll try any way?" Sure and tank the stocks and show weakness.
I feel that way about essentially every quote from a corporate or government spokesperson or executive on any topic that is contentious. It's like how CNBC had banking executives on air talking about how solid their investments were as the mortgage market was collapsing in 2008. It's just noise.
You are publicly lying about your corporation, therefore misinforming current or potential stockholders, causing them financial loss when the thing you lie about becomes provably false. And you knew in advance.
An exec saying they're confident they will win in appeal isn't a factual claim, and just in case, there is usually a legal disclaimer about forward-looking statements, too.
To me, the silver lining of the last 10 years is that ordinary people have had plenty of training on how to see through blatant lies and BS. If they're able to navigate the despair and the injustice of the times, there are some quality lessons out there about what truth is, should be and where to find it.
Call me crazy, but I think we're going to see a hard turn back to good journalism in the next 8 years.
Jury awards often get reduced by judges either for "reasonability" or due to statute or because they don't want it overturned on appeal just because of the award. It was closer to what the lawmakers had asked for in this case.
The judge probably provided reasoning but it'd require court papers. I'll poke around Lawsky and see if someone talked about it
He didn't explain it apparently (there are state constitutional arguments apparently that could hurt on appeal I guess). It also may have been to reduce the likelihood of appeal
I know very little of this item, but I do hope that this is a start of a larger movement. Similar to tobacco companies. These social media sites know what they are doing is wrong but keep on doing it (again I don't know anything of what the scope and findings of this case) so I do hope this the 1st of many more to come.
[OP] Hunterquill | a day ago
CrypticCuriosity629 | a day ago
Sometimes I laugh at these statements because they have no substance or authority, it's just BS.
Because lets be honest, as a Chief Legal Officer of Meta, what else would you say? "We're not very confident we're going to win the appeal, but we'll try any way?" Sure and tank the stocks and show weakness.
It's such a nothing statement.
glesica | a day ago
I feel that way about essentially every quote from a corporate or government spokesperson or executive on any topic that is contentious. It's like how CNBC had banking executives on air talking about how solid their investments were as the mortgage market was collapsing in 2008. It's just noise.
d32 | 21 hours ago
But.. Isn't that a securities fraud?
You are publicly lying about your corporation, therefore misinforming current or potential stockholders, causing them financial loss when the thing you lie about becomes provably false. And you knew in advance.
skybrian | 19 hours ago
An exec saying they're confident they will win in appeal isn't a factual claim, and just in case, there is usually a legal disclaimer about forward-looking statements, too.
kingofsnake | 19 hours ago
To me, the silver lining of the last 10 years is that ordinary people have had plenty of training on how to see through blatant lies and BS. If they're able to navigate the despair and the injustice of the times, there are some quality lessons out there about what truth is, should be and where to find it.
Call me crazy, but I think we're going to see a hard turn back to good journalism in the next 8 years.
updawg | 12 hours ago
Then how do you explain...everything?
DFGdanger | 21 hours ago
Any more info on why it got chopped by 90% or so?
DefinitelyNotAFae | 20 hours ago
Jury awards often get reduced by judges either for "reasonability" or due to statute or because they don't want it overturned on appeal just because of the award. It was closer to what the lawmakers had asked for in this case.
The judge probably provided reasoning but it'd require court papers. I'll poke around Lawsky and see if someone talked about it
He didn't explain it apparently (there are state constitutional arguments apparently that could hurt on appeal I guess). It also may have been to reduce the likelihood of appeal
New Mexico judge reduces jury’s penalty against Meta to $25 billion | Courthouse News Service https://www.courthousenews.com/new-mexico-judge-reduces-jurys-penalty-against-meta-to-25-billion/
jredd23 | 13 hours ago
I know very little of this item, but I do hope that this is a start of a larger movement. Similar to tobacco companies. These social media sites know what they are doing is wrong but keep on doing it (again I don't know anything of what the scope and findings of this case) so I do hope this the 1st of many more to come.