back to article Meta to cough up $1.4B to end fight over 'unlawful' facial recognition of friends

Meta will pay a record $1.4 billion to settle a lawsuit with Texas, which accused the Facebook giant of breaking privacy laws by performing facial recognition on people's photos without their consent. The US state sued Meta [PDF] in 2022, and at the time it was the first lawsuit – and now the first settlement – brought against …

  1. JustAnotherDistro

    Meta does not admit wrongdoing.

    Will one of the other forty-nine states get Meta to admit wrongdoing?

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Meta does not admit wrongdoing.

      Just prosecute. A conviction means admissions would be immaterial. Settlements like this come pretty close to buying and selling justice.

      1. ecofeco Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: Meta does not admit wrongdoing.

        Close? That's exactly what it is.

        And has been ever since I can remember. Which is many, many decades.

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Meta does not admit wrongdoing.

        Prosecution without accepting a settlement would be hugely expensive. Adjusted for inflation, US v. IBM probably cost the government around $120M, and that was eventually dismissed by the government; who knows how much longer it would have dragged on? Add to that the value of the settlement you're not taking. Then estimate the risk of losing the case.

        It would be very hard for a state to justify that kind of investment.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Meta does not admit wrongdoing.

          On the other hand, did Meta really think paying off $1.4B was cheaper than trying to win the case or have it thrown out?

          Having said that, $1.4B over five years seems rather generous of Texas considering Metas income/profits, something they could probably quite easily pay all at once.

  2. veti Silver badge

    So Texas gets $1.4 billion that it doesn't have to squeeze out of its own taxpayers.

    Part of me thinks good for them, but another part thinks is this really how revenues should be raised?

    1. Dostoevsky Bronze badge

      Heh. Texas is not exactly strapped for cash as it is—we're one of the few states that put more money *in* to the federal government than we get out of it—and as a citizen, I'm curious to see what happens with this money.

      We just voted on amendments to create billion-dollar funds for water, broadband, and energy infrastructure.¹ I'd love to see this go in one of those, though I don't know the rules on its usage.

      1. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/07/texas-constitutional-amendment-election-results/

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        texas?

        According to this site your not even close to being the only state that sends more the the feds that it gets. large number of states send more than they get like New Jersey, New York, Florida, Ohio, California, the list goes on.

        https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/

        15 states do better, and a lot are right in your ball park.

        1. Dostoevsky Bronze badge

          Re: Texas?

          Here's the definitive report—thanks, Rockefeller Institute—and yes, lots of states do better. But they also have higher proportions of high-wage-earners and large businesses, which, thanks to the progressive tax scale, pay much more than middle- & lower-class workers, or small businesses.

          Check out the 2015-2016 data. Texas was one of 12 states paying more than was received, and that was probably when I heard this...

          https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Texas?

            And when you stop to think about it, the Fed Government couldn't operate if none of the States put in more than they get out. They have to "profit" from the rich States so they can afford to help out the "poor" States. I suppose the real question is, do the States actually send money to the Fed Gov., or is that individuals and corporations who happen to be in States actually pay the Fed Gov? Are the States merely middle-men tax collectors?

  3. Sora2566 Silver badge

    No admission of wrongdoing = "We have no plans to stop. Pleasure doing business with you."

  4. Gene Cash Silver badge

    Fine!

    So they pay $1.4B to avoid a much bigger fine? I wonder how much bigger they thought it might be.

    Or was not admitting wrongdoing and avoiding a legal precedent worth that much?

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: Fine!

      Maybe not much bigger, maybe not bigger at all. But it's worth something to get closure. Makes their accounts that much tidier, and of course saves legal costs and bandwidth.

      (Even Meta has a finite team of lawyers, it doesn't want them bogged down forever fighting this one case.)

  5. GraXXoR Bronze badge

    So Meta are saying they did nothing wrong and yet they had to pay $1.4B ? How do they square that? It makes no sense.

    The whole political and business world is coated with a hundred layers of “spin” with something entirely malevolent lurking below.

    TBH, I’m finding it hard to put into words the precise feeling of vague dread I have that nothing seems entirely real any more, everything is just a veneer and the illusion is about to burst.

    Everything feels like it’s being held together by sparkly duck tape that is straining at the seams.

    Is this what existential dread feels like?

    1. Gavacodo

      MS says "Cheaper than continuing to pay our lawyers" ???

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Happy

        If they are so confident they did nothing wrong, why would they need an army of highly paid lawyers to defend themselves? A couple of low to mid-level lawyers should be able to point out the flaws in the States case if Meta are so confident they are in the right. :-)

        So many of these big corporate cases strike me as defending the status quo and keeping as much as possible in legal limbo or gray areas because heaven forfend there is an actual ruling defining "The Line Which Must Not Be Crossed" where all the profits are. By forcing a settlement instead of a ruling, they can continue profiting from all the gray areas where they may or may not be across "The Line". This settlement has left a gray area just a slighter whiter shade of pale meaning they can continue to exploit similar areas for a good while longer, making extra profits to outweigh any future "settlements".

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like