Don Marti: Inquiring Minds (Have a Right to) Know

The recent verdict in the Frasco v. Flo case has sent shockwaves through the tech industry, highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability from companies like Meta. As we delve into the details of this landmark case, it's clear that the consequences will be far-reaching.

A Landmark Win for Consumers

Lead trial attorney Michael Canty claims a significant victory in this case, which was marked by numerous twists and turns. The plaintiffs' clients had entrusted their sensitive information to a health app, only to have it exploited by one of the world's most powerful tech companies.

At first glance, it may seem like a slam dunk for Meta. After all, they claimed that user privacy is important to them, and that their terms prohibit developers from sending sensitive data. However, as we'll explore in this article, nothing was as simple as it seemed.

The Problem with Meta's Arguments

The key issue here is consent. Meta claimed that users had given their permission for the data to be shared, but the plaintiffs argued that this was a sham. They pointed out that Meta's terms of service were unclear and that the company had failed to provide adequate warnings about what would happen to the user data.

Furthermore, Meta's lawyers relied on a flawed argument: that since the law doesn't impose liability on a party receiving data intentionally sent to them, they couldn't be held accountable. However, this reasoning is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how consent works in the digital age.

The Case Against Meta

So what went wrong for Meta? In short, the company's lawyers failed to address the most critical issue: the lack of transparency and accountability. By failing to provide clear warnings about data collection and use, Meta left its users vulnerable to exploitation.

The verdict was clear: Meta had violated California wiretap law by collecting data from a period-tracker app without consent. This is a significant development, as it sets a precedent for the tech industry.

The Bigger Picture

This case is not just about Meta; it's about the broader issue of corporate accountability in the digital age. As we've seen, companies like Flo and Google have been using user data to target ads, often without users' consent.

The problem is that these companies have a duopoly on our personal data, and they're making a fortune off of it. But what happens when we start to realize the true extent of their power?

What's Next?

As Meta begins to filter out sensitive data from its systems, there are still many unanswered questions about how this will affect users. For instance, how can researchers and journalists hold companies accountable for their actions? How can they uncover the truth behind corporate wrongdoing?

The answer lies in the humble "right to know" (RtK). This concept is simple yet powerful: it requires companies to disclose data that has been used to target ads or perpetuate harms.

The Right to Know

In California, for example, the state's Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) gives consumers a right to receive inferences about how their data was used. This is a crucial development, as it sets a precedent for holding companies accountable for their actions.

But what happens when RtKs are not enforced? When researchers and journalists are left to pick up the pieces?

The Future of Journalism

The future of journalism is at stake here. As we've seen, Meta's lawyers tried to spin the verdict as a victory for the company. But in reality, this case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability from tech companies.

Journalists must continue to push for better practices, and demand that companies prioritize user privacy above profits.

The Road Ahead

There are many lessons to be learned from this case. One of the most important is that companies like Meta have a responsibility to prioritize user privacy. But what happens when they fail?

In the end, it's up to us – as consumers, journalists, and regulators – to ensure that corporations like Meta are held accountable for their actions.

The clock is ticking.