It’s damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, and/or that they raised prices or reduced quality because they knew they didn’t have to fear competitors.
It’s a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it. What am I, a mind-reader? But imagine for a second that the corporation in the dock is a global multinational. Now, imagine that the majority of the voting shares in that company are held by one man, who has served as the company’s CEO since the day he founded it, personally calling every important shot in the company’s history.
Now imagine that this founder/CEO, this accused monopolist, was an incorrigible blabbermouth, who communicated with his underlings almost exclusively in writing, and thus did he commit to immortal digital storage a stream – a torrent – of memos in which he explicitly confessed his guilt.
Ladies and gentlepersons, I give you Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta (nee Facebook), an accused monopolist who cannot keep his big dumb fucking mouth shut.
He’s smart, but not wise. When you don’t know everything and don’t know what you don’t know, you act carefully. When it comes to the law, you should be extra careful and he should have had attorneys that advised him again putting this shit in writing.
Lol this is the typical takeaway. A better result would be to not engage in illegal practices and then it doesn’t matter if you put it in writing, but that’s not how you become a billionaire.
I’m with you. For the record, I was not advising people to act unethically, just surprised he wasn’t better at it.