Facebook denied the allegations, saying in a statement to the Financial Times that “When we changed our policy in 2015, we gave all third-party developers ample notice of material platform changes that could have impacted their application.” It said it tried to work with Six4Three but that the developer declined any suggestions made by Facebook. It said it is false that it treated app developers better because they purchased advertising.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that a decline in shares of Facebook after it went public in May of 2012 prompted the company to launch the scam aimed at getting things out of the app developers. “Zuckerberg personally lost approximately $10bn in the period during which he decided to implement the fraudulent and anti-competitive schemes,” the complaint alleged, according to the Financial Times. “After Zuckerberg decided upon and implemented the alleged fraudulent and anti-competitive schemes, the downward trajectory of Facebook’s stock reversed course and began its rapid climb.” According to the lawsuit, Facebook wanted to remove any competitive threat to planned products and it wanted to boost its mobile advertising business by “holding software companies hostage.” It went on to contend that Zuckerberg made up that narrative that the company was closing down data to apps that rarely used the data or had somehow violated the trust of users. In a court submission, Facebook said, “Six4Three is taking its fifth shot at an ever-expanding set of claims and all of its claims turn on one decision, which is absolutely protected: Facebook’s editorial decision to stop publishing certain user-generated content via its platform to third-party app developers,” reported the FT.
Full Content: PYMNTS
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Croatian Supermarket Chain Tommy Cleared to Acquire Brodokomerc Nova
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
X and Unilever Settle Antitrust Dispute, Continuing Partnership
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Allows Antitrust Claims Against GoDaddy to Proceed
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Court Ruling Opens Door for Microsoft to Sell Xbox Games on Android Without Google’s Cut
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Realtors Appeal to Supreme Court Over DOJ’s Investigation into Antitrust Violations
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh