DOCSLIB.ORG

SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT ALL ACTIONS Judge: Hon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case 3:18-md-02843-VC Document 491 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 366 Lesley E. Weaver (SBN 191305) Derek W. Loeser (admitted pro hac vice) BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Oakland, CA 94607 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel.: (415) 445-4003 Tel.: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (415) 445-4020 Fax: (206) 623-3384 [email protected] [email protected] Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Additional counsel listed on signature page UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC. CONSUMER MDL No. 2843 PRIVACY USER PROFILE LITIGATION Case No. 18-md-02843-VC This document relates to: SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT ALL ACTIONS Judge: Hon. Vince Chhabria SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED MDL NO. 2843 COMPLAINT ASE O MD C N . 18- -02843-VC Case 3:18-md-02843-VC Document 491 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 366 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND CHOICE OF LAW ........................................................5 III. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................6 A. Plaintiffs ...................................................................................................................6 B. Defendants and Co-Conspirators ...........................................................................85 1. Prioritized Defendant and Doe Defendants: ....................................................85 2. Non-Prioritized Defendants (Individual Defendants Named in Actions Consolidated in this MDL as to Whom Co-Lead Counsel Seek a Stay) .........86 C. Interested Parties ....................................................................................................86 D. Unnamed Co-Conspirators: Cambridge-Analytica-Related Entities .....................87 E. Other Non-Defendant Co-Conspirator ...................................................................89 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................89 A. Facebook’s Transition from Social Media Company to Data Broker ...................89 1. Facebook Encouraged User Engagement to Drive Advertising Revenues. .....91 2. User Engagement Increased When Facebook Gave App Developers Users’ Content and Information ..................................................................................93 3. Facebook’s Partnerships with Data Brokers Resulted in Aggregated, Deanonymized User Information ...................................................................101 4. The Wealth of Data About Users Enabled Highly Invasive Forms of Psychographic Marketing ..............................................................................103 B. Facebook Made It Difficult and Sometimes Impossible for Users to Prevent Facebook from Publishing Their Content and Information to Third-Party Applications. ........................................................................................................107 1. Overview of the Facebook User Platform .....................................................107 2. Facebook Falsely Promised Users That Their Privacy Controls Limited Sharing of Their Content and Information to the Audiences They Selected ...................108 SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED i MDL NO. 2843 COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18-MD-02843-VC Case 3:18-md-02843-VC Document 491 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 366 3. Facebook’s “Privacy Controls” Misled Users About How to Control the Information and Content That They Shared with Applications. ....................109 4. To Control Sharing with Applications, Facebook Required Users to Hunt for, Find, and Change the Default Preferences of Their App Settings. .........................117 5. Facebook Changed the Default Privacy Settings from 2010-2014 to Make More Content Public, Prompting FTC Action. .......................................................124 C. Facebook Allowed Third Parties to Access Facebook Users’ Content and Information Without or Beyond the Scope of Users’ Consent. ...........................127 1. Facebook Developed an Interface That Allowed App Developers to Access a Facebook User’s Content and Information Via That User’s Friend. .............127 2. Graph API Allows App Developers to Access Users’ Video Information. ...134 3. To Allow Third Parties Unfettered Access to Users’ Content and Information, Facebook Stripped Users’ Privacy Designations for Certain Content Available on Graph API. .....................................................................................................137 4. Cambridge Analytica Used Facebook’s Graph API Interface to Take Users’ Content and Information. ...............................................................................141 5. The Cambridge Analytica Scandal Has Triggered Additional Revelations of Apps’ Misuse of User Content and Information.......................................................153 6. Facebook Also Enabled Device Makers and Other Business Partners to Access Users’ Content and Information Through Friends. ........................................155 7. Facebook Extended Certain “Whitelisted” Companies Access to Friends’ Information Despite Facebook’s Contrary Representations to Users. ...........159 D. Facebook Failed to Monitor and to Protect User Content and Information from Third Parties’ Unauthorized Use. ..................................................................................166 1. Facebook Has a History of Discarding Its Promises to Protect User Privacy in Reckless Pursuit of Growth. ..........................................................................167 2. Facebook Ignored Internal Warnings Regarding Risks Posed by Third Parties’ Access to Users’ Content and Information. ...................................................171 3. Facebook Failed to Monitor Business Partners’ and Whitelisted Companies’ Use of Users’ Content and Information. ...............................................................175 4. Facebook Failed to Limit Business Partners’ and Whitelisted Companies’ Access to Users’ Content and Information. ...............................................................177 SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED ii MDL NO. 2843 COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18-MD-02843-VC Case 3:18-md-02843-VC Document 491 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 366 5. Facebook Allowed Business Partners and Whitelisted Companies to Deceive Users About Their Access to Users’ Content and Information. ..............................178 6. Facebook Also Took No Action to Ensure App Developers Followed Its Platform and Privacy Policies. ......................................................................................180 7. Facebook Failed to Adequately Mitigate Harm Caused by Kogan and Cambridge Analytica or to Prevent Further Risk of Harm. ..............................................181 8. Facebook’s Failure to Notify Plaintiffs of the Misuse of Their Data Hindered User’s Ability to Take Remedial Measures. ..................................................183 E. Plaintiffs Did Not Consent to Facebook’s Misconduct. ......................................184 1. Facebook’s SRR and Data Policy Did Not Create Consent. .........................184 a. Facebook’s SRR and Data Policy Did Not Create Consent with Respect to the VPPA. ................................................................................................185 b. Facebook’s SRR and Data Policy Did Not Create Consent to Conduct that Violated the SRR and Data Policy. ..........................................................186 (i) By Allowing Users No Control over Sharing with Business Partners, Facebook Violated Its Pledge That Users Would Have Control over How Their Content and Information Was Shared. .....................................186 (ii) Facebook Violated Its Pledge That Apps and Websites Would Use Users’ Content and Information Merely “in Connection with” Their Friends.186 (iii)By Continuing to Allow Whitelisted Apps and Business Partners’ Apps to Have Access Even to Users That Had Turned off All App Access, Facebook Violated Its Pledge That Users Could Bar Apps from Accessing Their Data. ........................................................................187 (iv) Facebook Violated Its Pledge Not to Give Content and Information to Advertisers by Permitting Access by Apps, Websites, and Business Partners That Were Also Advertisers. ...............................................188 (v) By Stripping Metadata from Content and Information, Facebook Violated Its Pledge That Apps Would Respect Users’ Privacy. .......................190 c. Users Did Not Consent to Misconduct That the Documents Wholly Failed to Disclose. ...................................................................................................190 (i) Facebook Failed to Disclose Its Data Sharing with Business Partners ..............................................................................................191 (ii) Facebook Failed to Disclose Psychographic Profiling. .....................192 SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED iii MDL NO. 2843 COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18-MD-02843-VC Case 3:18-md-02843-VC Document 491 Filed 08/04/20 Page 5 of 366 (iii)Facebook Failed to Disclose That When Apps and Websites Accessed Data from the Friends of Users, Those Friends’ Privacy Metadata Was Stripped. .............................................................................................192 d.
Recommended publications
  • Amazon's Antitrust Paradox

    Amazon's Antitrust Paradox

    LINA M. KHAN Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox abstract. Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a re- tailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and ex- pand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e- commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny. This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competi- tion to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the ar- chitecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are height- ened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have re- warded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.
  • The Rules of #Metoo

    The Rules of #Metoo

    University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 2019 Article 3 2019 The Rules of #MeToo Jessica A. Clarke Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Clarke, Jessica A. (2019) "The Rules of #MeToo," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 2019 , Article 3. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2019/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized editor of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Rules of #MeToo Jessica A. Clarke† ABSTRACT Two revelations are central to the meaning of the #MeToo movement. First, sexual harassment and assault are ubiquitous. And second, traditional legal procedures have failed to redress these problems. In the absence of effective formal legal pro- cedures, a set of ad hoc processes have emerged for managing claims of sexual har- assment and assault against persons in high-level positions in business, media, and government. This Article sketches out the features of this informal process, in which journalists expose misconduct and employers, voters, audiences, consumers, or professional organizations are called upon to remove the accused from a position of power. Although this process exists largely in the shadow of the law, it has at- tracted criticisms in a legal register. President Trump tapped into a vein of popular backlash against the #MeToo movement in arguing that it is “a very scary time for young men in America” because “somebody could accuse you of something and you’re automatically guilty.” Yet this is not an apt characterization of #MeToo’s paradigm cases.
  • Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository #Wetoo

    Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository #Wetoo

    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 4-29-2021 #WeToo Kimberly Kessler Ferzan University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Commons, Evidence Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Repository Citation Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler, "#WeToo" (2021). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2332. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2332 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comments Welcome. Do not cite or quote without permission. #WeToo Kimberly Kessler Ferzan The #MeToo movement has caused a widespread cultural reckoning over sexual violence, abuse, and harassment. “Me too” was meant to express and symbolize that each individual victim was not alone in their experiences of sexual harm; they added their voice to others who had faced similar injustices. But viewing the #MeToo movement as a collection of singular voices fails to appreciate that the cases that filled our popular discourse were not cases of individual victims coming forward. Rather, case after case involved multiple victims, typically women, accusing single perpetrators. Victims were believed because there was both safety and strength in numbers. The allegations were not by a “me,” but far more frequently by a “we.” The #MeToo movement is the success of #WeToo.
  • Nominate a Woman Who Connects the World

    Nominate a Woman Who Connects the World

    2019 BALLOT NOMINATE A WOMAN WHO CONNECTS THE WORLD Each year the Matrix Awards celebrates the career achievements of women in the communications field with a luncheon in their honor. This annual event, New York Women in presented by New York Women in Communications, Communications empowers pays tribute to the industry’s best and brightest women in all communications professional women in various fields of communications. disciplines at all stages of their careers to reach their full potential by promoting their ELIGIBILITY DETAILS professional growth and The Matrix Awards are presented annually to women who: inspiring them to achieve • have achieved the highest level of professional excellence in their fields; and share their successes in • are recognized for their exceptional abilities, their impact on the the rapidly changing world communications community, and their capacity to make a difference; of communications. • provide leadership to their constituency; A matrix was a metal • have contributed to New York Women in Communications’ goal of supporting the advancement of women in the communications field. mold used to cast type for printed material. It represents The final selection of winners is made by an awards committee comprising the beginning of mass representatives of the New York Women in Communications Board and past Matrix winners. The nominee must be available to attend the communication. Matrix Awards Luncheon in order to receive the award. 2019 MATRIX NOMINATIONS The category descriptions provided are merely a guide by which you may select your candidate. Awards will not be given in all categories listed. Nominations must be postmarked or emailed no later than midnight, Friday, September 7, 2018.
  • Bro, Foe, Or Ally? Measuring Ambivalent Sexism in Political Online Reporters

    Bro, Foe, Or Ally? Measuring Ambivalent Sexism in Political Online Reporters

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by City Research Online Bro, foe, or ally? Measuring ambivalent sexism in political online reporters Lindsey E. Blumell Department of Journalism, City, University of London, London, UK ABSTRACT The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) measures hostile (overt antagonism towards women) and benevolent (chivalry) sexism. Previous research shows that political ideology contributes to ASI. Yet little attention has been given to increasingly popular political websites in terms of measuring sexism. Furthermore, recent firings of news professionals over accused sexual misconduct reveal the seriousness of sexism in the news industry. This study surveyed political online reporters (N = 210) using ASI and predicting sociodemographic and organizational factors. Results show benevolent sexism levels mostly similar for all factors, but not hostile sexism. Those working for conservative websites had higher levels of hostile sexism, but website partisanship had no significance for benevolent sexism. Men reported higher levels of hostile sexism and protective paternalism, but not complementary gender differentiation. Overall, individual levels of conservatism also predicted hostile sexism, but not benevolence. The pervasiveness of benevolence jeopardizes women’s progression in the workplace. High levels of hostility ultimately endanger newsrooms, as well as negatively impact political coverage of gender related issues. “Can I have some of the queen’s waters? Precious waters? Where’s that Bill Cosby pill I brought with me?” laughed veteran MSNBC host Chris Matthews, moments before interviewing the soon to be first female major party presidential candidate in US history (Noreen Malone 2018). His off-the-cuff remarks (1) belittled the authority of Hillary Clinton (calling her a queen) and (2) included a “joke” about giving her a Quaalude (Cosby has admitted to giving women Quaaludes in order to have sexual intercourse; Graham Bowley and Sydney Ember [2015]).
  • Delivering on the #Metoo Mandate: Reforming Antidiscrimination Law to Deter and Remedy Sexual Harassment

    Delivering on the #Metoo Mandate: Reforming Antidiscrimination Law to Deter and Remedy Sexual Harassment

    American Constitution Society 2019 National Convention June 6-8, 2019 Washington, DC Delivering on the #MeToo Mandate: Reforming Antidiscrimination Law to Deter and Remedy Sexual Harassment by Debra S. Katz* Lisa J. Banks Hannah Alejandro Katz, Marshall & Banks LLP Washington, DC 202-299-1140 www.kmblegal.com * Debra S. Katz and Lisa J. Banks are founding partners with Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP, a civil rights firm based in Washington, D.C., that specializes in the representation of plaintiffs in employment law, whistleblower, civil rights and civil liberties matters. Hannah Alejandro is Senior Counsel with the Firm. I. Introduction When the #MeToo movement emerged in October 2017 in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, its revelations prompted a nationwide reckoning with the epidemic of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and abuse – largely of women – in the workplace that could no longer be denied.1 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has prohibited many forms of sexual harassment for over 50 years, providing crucial protections for millions of American workers. As #MeToo makes clear, however, abusive, hostile work environments are still very much part of the 21st century workplace. The movement has brought long overdue attention to both the importance and power of the law to protect workers, and some its dramatic failures to prevent and remedy widespread harassment thus far. At its core, sexual harassment rests on entrenched imbalances and abuses of power, and truly meaningful, lasting change will only come when the overall power structures of the American workplace have shifted. Practically speaking, such systemic change cannot come from individual legal action alone, or even primarily; its costs are simply too high and its reach too limited, particularly for low-wage workers.
  • Finding Balance, Forging a Legacy: Harassers’ Rights and Employer Best Practices in the Era of Metoo

    Finding Balance, Forging a Legacy: Harassers’ Rights and Employer Best Practices in the Era of Metoo

    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2020 Finding Balance, Forging a Legacy: Harassers’ Rights and Employer Best Practices in the Era of MeToo Rachel Arnow-Richman University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Rachel Arnow-Richman, Finding Balance, Forging a Legacy: Harassers’ Rights and Employer Best Practices in the Era of MeToo, 54 U.S.F.L. Rev. 1 (2020) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles Finding Balance, Forging a Legacy: Harassers’ Rights and Employer Best Practices in the Era of MeToo* By RACHEL ARNOW-RICHMAN** IT HAS BEEN TWO YEARS since news of serial sexual misconduct by Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein triggered the social media phe- nomenon that became MeToo.1 While new allegations continue to * The Jack Pemberton Lecture on Workplace Justice ** Chauncey Wilson Memorial Research Professor & Director, Workplace Law Program, University of Denver Sturm College of Law; B.A., Rutgers University; J.D., Harvard Law School; LL.M., Temple Law School. I am grateful to the University of San Francisco Law School, its law review, and its outstanding employment law faculty for honoring me with the opportunity to deliver the 2019 Jack Pemberton Lecture.
  • The Fragility of the Free American Press

    The Fragility of the Free American Press

    Copyright 2017 by RonNell Andersen Jones and Sonja R. West Vol. 112 Northwestern University Law Review THE FRAGILITY OF THE FREE AMERICAN PRESS RonNell Andersen Jones & Sonja R. West ABSTRACT—President Donald Trump has faced criticism for attacking the press and for abandoning longstanding traditions of accommodating and respecting it. This Essay argues that the national discussion spurred by Trump’s treatment of the press has fallen short of capturing the true seriousness of the situation. Trump’s assault on the custom of press accommodation follows a generation-long collapse of other major press protections. In order to fully understand the critical juncture at which American press freedom now stands, we must expand the discussion beyond talk of a rogue president’s aberrant attacks on the press and consider the increasingly fragile edifice on which the American free press sits. This is because the kind of press we value and need in the United States—one that is free, independent, and democracy-enhancing—does not just occur naturally. Nor is it protected by a single, robust constitutional right. Rather, it is supported by a number of legal and nonlegal pillars, such as the institutional media’s relative financial strength, the goodwill of the public, a mutually dependent relationship with government officials, and the backing of sympathetic judges. Each of these supports has weakened substantially in recent years, leaving the one remaining pillar of tradition and custom to bear more of the weight. Contrary to widespread belief, our concern should not be that Trump might be taking the first step toward crippling the power of the free press, but rather that he might be taking the final step in a process that has long been underway.
  • Nominate a Woman Who Connects the World

    Nominate a Woman Who Connects the World

    Celebrating 50 Years 2020 BALLOT NOMINATE A WOMAN WHO CONNECTS THE WORLD Each year the Matrix Awards celebrates the career achievements of women in the communications field with a luncheon in their honor. This annual event, New York Women in presented by New York Women in Communications, Communications empowers pays tribute to the industry’s best and brightest women in all communications professional women in various fields of communications. disciplines at all stages of their careers to reach their full potential by promoting their ELIGIBILITY DETAILS professional growth and The Matrix Awards are presented annually to women who: inspiring them to achieve • have achieved the highest level of professional excellence in their fields; and share their successes in • are recognized for their exceptional abilities, their impact on the the rapidly changing world communications community, and their capacity to make a difference; of communications. • provide leadership to their constituency; A matrix was a metal • have contributed to New York Women in Communications’ goal of supporting the advancement of women in the communications field. mold used to cast type for printed material. It represents The final selection of winners is made by an awards committee comprising the beginning of mass representatives of the New York Women in Communications Board and past Matrix winners. The nominee must be available to attend the communication. Matrix Awards Luncheon in order to receive the award. 2020 MATRIX NOMINATIONS Celebrating 50 Years The category descriptions provided are merely a guide by which you may select your candidate. Awards will not be given in all categories listed. Nominations must be postmarked or emailed no later than midnight, Friday, September 6, 2019.
  • “Project Censored's List of the Top Stories That Get Very Little

    “Project Censored's List of the Top Stories That Get Very Little

    “Project Censored’s list of the top stories that get very little mainstream me- dia traction should in fact drive the reporting agendas of every major news outlet. These 25 stories are clearly the most consequential of the year, and what is scary in looking at the list is how obvious it is that silencing reports of these themes protects corrupt governments and corporate gatekeepers. Project Censored is a lifeline to the world’s most urgent and significant stories.” —Naomi Wolf, author of the bestselling books The Beauty Myth; The End of America; and Give Me Liberty “The systematic exposure of censored stories by Project Censored has been an important contribution.” —Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States “Project Censored . has evolved into a deep, wide, and utterly engross- ing exercise to unmask censorship, self-censorship, and propaganda in the mass media.” —Ralph Nader, consumer advocate, lawyer, author “[Project Censored] is a clarion call for truth telling.”—Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers “[Project Censored] shows how the American public has been bamboozled, snookered, and dumbed down by the corporate media. It is chock-full of ‘ah- ha’ moments where we understand just how we’ve been fleeced by bank- sters, stripped of our civil liberties, and blindly led down a path of never- ending war.” —Medea Benjamin, author of Drone Warfare, and cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK “Project Censored . not only shines a penetrating light on the American Empire and all its deadly, destructive, and deceitful actions, it does so at a time when the Obama administration is mounting a fierce effort to silence truth-tellers and whistleblowers.
  • Culture of Lies Understanding Fake News & Its Spiritual Ramifications

    Culture of Lies Understanding Fake News & Its Spiritual Ramifications

    Culture of Lies Understanding Fake News & Its Spiritual Ramifications Timothy Zebell CreateSpace Publisher Culture of Lies Copyright © 2019 by Timothy Zebell. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. ISBN-9781693873225 Imprint: Independently Published Contents _____________________ 1. The State of Our Media ................................................................ 1 2. The President’s Fake News Awards ................................... 11 3. A Culture of Lies ....................................................................... 25 4. The Anatomy of Fake News .............................................. 51 5. Three Types of Fake News ....................................................... 65 6. A Long History of Fake News .......................................... 85 7. Fake Polls & Fake Fact-Checkers ............................................. 97 8. Fake Hate ......................................................................... 115 9. The Growing Threat of Censorship ....................................... 125 10. When Fake News Becomes a Culture of Lies ................ 139 Appendix A – Further Details of Examples Used .............. 149 Appendix B – Additional Examples of Fake News in the Era of Trump: 2016 .............................................. 157 Appendix C – Additional Examples of Fake News in the Era of Trump: 2017 .......................................
  • Sexual Harassment in the Post-Weinstein World

    Sexual Harassment in the Post-Weinstein World

    Second to Printer_Grossman.docx (Do Not Delete) 5/4/21 1:13 PM Sexual Harassment in the Post-Weinstein World Joanna L. Grossman* The 2017 iteration of the #MeToo movement has brought tremendous attention to the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as in a variety of other contexts. We learned that sexual harassment is rampant, varied in form, and harmful, or, more accurately, that it is still all of these things. Sexual harassment at work has existed as long as women have worked, whether paid, valued, or enslaved. The law of sexual harassment has a much more recent provenance. Courts began to recognize harassment as a form of sex discrimination in the early 1980s, and the entire current structure of sexual harassment doctrine was in place by the end of the 1990s. The law, in broad brush, prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and gives its survivors access to a variety of remedies when the employer permits it to happen. Yet today, almost four decades after the law first categorized sexual misconduct as a form of unlawful discrimination, an average American workplace can feel remarkably like a saloon in the Wild West. This Article will explore the ways in which the #MeToo movement has affected (or might affect) institutional response to sexual harassment. This entails first understanding some early lessons from the #MeToo movement. Then, it explores the legal regime that both unequivocally treats harassment as prohibited and sometimes permits it to flourish. The Article will first consider the nature and degree of the problem, before exploring the development of sexual harassment law and the key components of the current legal doctrine designed to address misconduct.