Meta “had exercised an unfair market advantage by extracting personal data of internet users in violation of European law and using it to create more effective advertising”.
That’s one helluva law.
GOOD
half a billion
peanuts for Meta I guess - but keep them coming, the EU has 27 member states
Not peanuts. 20% of annual revenue (not income) in Spain.
I love to see Meta lose, but I couldn’t care less that “legacy media” lost ad revenue. This money should be paid to the public for being targeted with illegal privacy practices.
This money should be paid to the public for being targeted with illegal privacy practices.
So the public should sue them. This is not the court deciding where the money should go. Media companies sued for their share, the public can sue to get their.
If you sue and lose it could cost up to a million dollars in your own legal fees and having to pay theirs. The “justice” system is designed for the rich.
So what are you proposing?
I don’t have a solution but more transparency for starters. If I put money on the line I want to make sure the judge isn’t corrupt.
“Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial”
— Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832, English Jurist & Philosopher.
My friend just had a $100k decision against him and looking at a further $500k in legal fees for the other side while having paid $600 of his own fees.
The judge lied in the published decision that my friend already pleaded guilty to a crime from a recent previous hearing and was convicted. However the police had dropped the prosecution of that case because there was no evidence.
Despite that obvious bias going into the decision I don’t know if any lawyer will appeal on that basis because of the career repercussions of calling out a judge.
It would help if he could publish online the previous case which was dismissed but he would risk contempt of court for continuing to talk about the matter (a defamation case).
There were plenty of other dodgy things like the other party committing perjury, being caught out lying yet the judge not caring.
This other party is not “rich” but connected to powerful people.
They will appeal, then they will appeal again and again. In 10 years we will see some binding ruling.
