Mark Zuckerberg’s Bold Move: Reshaping Government Relationships with a Controversial Settlement
During an earnings call yesterday, Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, made a striking statement that hinted at significant changes in how tech giants interact with government entities. He emphasized, “This is going to be a big year for redefining our relationships with governments.” This declaration comes on the heels of a stunning revelation: Zuckerberg has found a controversial way to appease the current president. The strategy involves feigning the loss of a legal battle that was already won, then agreeing to pay a hefty settlement, all while appearing submissive. While this approach may not maximize shareholder value, it certainly aims to “redefine” connections with a president who has previously threatened legal repercussions against him.
Understanding the Legal Battle: Facebook’s Settlement with Trump
Details surrounding the settlement between Facebook and President Trump were first reported by The Wall Street Journal through journalists Annie Linskey and Rebecca Balhaus. This legal saga began in Florida in 2021, alongside similar lawsuits against other major platforms like Twitter and YouTube. Trump’s primary argument claimed that these social media platforms violated his First Amendment rights by deplatforming him after his efforts to maintain power culminated in the January 6th Capitol incident. However, the legal stipulations around First Amendment rights indicate that only government actions can constitute violations, and Trump was serving as president when he was banned on January 7, 2021. In response to this reality, Trump has attempted to shift the blame onto others, specifically targeting Adam Schiff.
Congressional Influences: The Role of Section 230 and Political Pressure
Several congressional figures, particularly Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, have vocally advocated for stripping social media platforms of their immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This legislation has historically protected these companies from legal liabilities regarding user-generated content. Interestingly, Trump himself vetoed the defense budget in 2020 due to Congress’s refusal to repeal Section 230. Furthermore, Congressman Adam Schiff had also expressed concerns regarding how these platforms handled misinformation, particularly concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. This political pressure has led Trump to argue that the platforms’ responses constituted a de facto government action, thus claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Judicial Outcomes: Navigating the Legal Challenges Ahead
Predictably, the courts have not aligned with Trump’s interpretations of the law. Initially, the lawsuits were transferred to California, adhering to the terms of service of the respective platforms. Subsequently, Judge James Donato dismissed the Twitter lawsuit in 2022 due to significant legal flaws. Although Trump attempted to appeal this decision, the cases involving Meta and YouTube were paused while awaiting review by the Ninth Circuit, as they share substantial similarities with the previously dismissed case. This legal limbo has persisted, especially as the parties have been entangled in the ramifications of the Fifth Circuit’s controversial ruling in Missouri v. Murthy. Meanwhile, both Twitter and Facebook (or X and Meta, respectively) seem to have opted for a settlement rather than continuing the legal battle against Trump, leading to Twitter proposing a settlement agreement in November.
The Financial Implications: Zuckerberg’s $25 Million Payment
In a surprising financial maneuver, Zuckerberg recently authorized a settlement payment of $25 million to Trump—$22 million earmarked for Trump’s presidential library and $3 million allocated for legal fees and other plaintiffs, including Naomi Wolf. This decision comes after Zuckerberg’s family charity previously funded numerous voting access initiatives through the Center for Tech and Civic Life in 2020, positioning Facebook as a supporter of democratic participation. However, Zuckerberg’s actions have also drawn criticism from conservatives, especially after Facebook limited the spread of the controversial Hunter Biden Laptop story. Following a meeting in November at Mar-a-Lago, Trump signaled that resolving this litigation was a prerequisite for Zuckerberg’s reintegration into his political circle.
Examining the Nature of the Settlement: A Strategic Move or a Bribe?
It is essential to differentiate this situation from previous high-profile settlements, such as ABC’s resolution of a lawsuit involving George Stephanopoulos. Unlike that case, which had substantial legal merit, Zuckerberg’s settlement appears to be a calculated financial decision to placate Trump and mitigate potential antitrust scrutiny or regulatory challenges. This substantial payment allows Zuckerberg to maneuver within the legal landscape without fear of repercussions, thus granting him freedom to pursue various business strategies without the threat of litigation. The ramifications of this settlement could further compromise the integrity of the platforms and raise ethical concerns regarding the treatment of minority groups. Ultimately, while this settlement may be viewed as a bribe, the benefits Zuckerberg stands to gain make it a strategic financial decision in a complex political environment.
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.
For more of the latest in litigation, regulation, deals, and financial services trends, sign up for Finance Docket, a partnership between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
