Facebook had argued it was not responsible for allegedly unlawful access to Australians’ personal data in 2014 and 2015.<\/p>\n
The shareholders wanted the 11 defendants to use their personal wealth to reimburse the company. The defendants denied the allegations, which they called “extreme claims”.<\/p>\n
Facebook changed its name to Meta in 2021. The company was not a defendant and declined to comment.<\/p>\n
On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019.<\/p>\n
A lawyer for the defendants declined to comment.<\/p>\n
“This settlement may bring relief to the parties involved, but it’s a missed opportunity for public accountability,” said Jason Kint, the head of Digital Content Next, a trade group for content providers.<\/p>\n
Executives avoid probing questions<\/p>\n
Mr Zuckerberg was expected to take the stand on Monday and Ms Sandberg on Wednesday. The trial was scheduled to run through the end of next week.<\/p>\n
The case was also expected to include testimony from former Facebook board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix.<\/p>\n
By settling, Mr Zuckerberg and other defendants avoid having to answer probing questions under oath.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ms Sandberg was found during the litigation to have deleted what were likely her most sensitive emails and she was sanctioned, making it harder for her to tell her side of the story in court.<\/p>\n
The settlement allows plaintiffs to avoid trying a very difficult case.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Sheryl Sandberg was found during the litigation to have deleted what were likely her most sensitive emails and she was sanctioned. (AP: Thibault Camus)<\/p>\n
Meta investors alleged that former and current board members completely failed to oversee the company’s compliance with the 2012 FTC agreement.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The lawsuit also claimed that Mr Zuckerberg and Ms Sandberg knowingly ran Facebook as an illegal data harvesting operation.<\/p>\n
The oversight allegations are known as Caremark claims, considered the most difficult to prove under Delaware corporate law.\u00a0<\/p>\n
It was the first time Caremark claims went to trial, and even if the plaintiffs had gotten a judgement in their favour, the case would have been appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.\u00a0<\/p>\n
That court has reversed major shareholder victories in recent years.<\/p>\n
The case followed revelations that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump’s successful US presidential campaign in 2016.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Those revelations led to the FTC fine, which was a record at the time.<\/p>\n