>> One of the people who listened intently to Mark Zuckerberg's was my next guest, Amy Johnsgard is the lead plaintiff against Facebook. That plaintiff is among the 87 million users in the U.S. who had their personal data stolen despite Facebook's stated policy that users had complete control over how their information was shared. And Facebook is not the only party named in the lawsuit. Joining me is Amy Johnsgard of the Coast Law group in San Diego. Amy, welcome to the program. >> Thank you for having me. >> Were there things Mark Zuckerberg said that you will be helpful to your suit? >> Yes, I think Zuckerberg was very upfront about making admissions about having failed its clients and customers. By allowing this data breach to occur. And also by not letting anybody know about it at the time in 2015 when they had that knowledge. It's kind of interesting that Facebook seems to be more concerned with the court of public opinion, then really it's ethical or its legal obligations to its users. We all I think noticed that every time Mark Zuckerberg apologizes, Facebook stock prices rises. But, that doesn't change that all of this user information is out there unprotected. >> During yesterday's testimony, Republican Congressman Greg Walden asked Mark Zuckerberg, why users data was not a higher priority at Facebook. Here is part of Mark Zuckerberg's response. >> I do think we can do a better job of explaining how advertising works. There is a common misperception as you say that is reported often, it keeps on being reported. For some reason we sell data. I can't be clear on this topic. We do not sell data. That's not how advertising works. And I do think we could probably be doing a clear job explaining that given the misperceptions that are out there. >> Tell us more about the claims being made in this lawsuit. >> Sure, so our clients just like the millions of other people across the country, and around the world that have Facebook accounts, have been very concerned about the news that has been coming out over the past month or so about Cambridge analytical. And, specifically, one of our clients, he really relied on Facebook as a primary means of communication with entire groups of people in his life, and he took down his account because of what's been going on in the news and because he's concerned about the data that has been released and could not be stopped. Another one of our clients is a Navy veteran, and he is you know, a registered Democrat and he noticed that he was being targeted for ads, that were for Republican candidates, which he never searched for. So there is a huge disconnect here, you know, and understanding I think that people will be targeted for ads for circuit consumer goods. But, this is a whole different matter, this is a matter of political propaganda. This is where, a vast store of various intimate details about one's life, are being used online, and being taken by these unknown third parties. And then used to manipulate you by using this psychographic profile on you. And then that is used to manipulate the outcome, for example the 2016 elections. >> Have any of the plaintiffs in your lawsuit been officially notified by Facebook that their data was breached? >> We do not have confirmation about that one way or another yet. >> Okay. >> Former presidential advisor, Steve Bennett is also named as a defendant, why is that? >> So at the time that this data harvesting was taking place, Steve Bannon was the vice president, secretary and an owner of Cambridge analytical, so, all of this really occurred under his watch. Based upon the news reports that have been coming out, and the interviews given by whistleblowers like Christopher Wiley. This Cambridge analytical scheme was really Bannon's brainchild. >> There have been class actions lawsuits filed another state, how might those suits affect this one? >> So, we filed our case in Southern California, because Coast Law group represents three southern California residents. And, there have been cases filed in Northern California, and throughout the country. There has been a petition filed to have all of those cases consolidated, and heard before one court, and one judge. And there will be a hearing on that petition, this summer, so at that point we will know more what this litigation looks like. >> Have you had any response from Facebook since your lawsuit was filed? >> Not to our lawsuit, the deadline for Facebook to respond to that lawsuit has actually not come yet. But, Facebook has filed a response to the petition that I just mentioned a moment ago to consolidate these cases in the Northern District of California put >> Weber's response is that? >> Essentially they are agreeing that the case should be heard in Northern California. >> What does this lawsuit seek X monetary damages? >> There is a claim for monetary damages but I think our primary objective of this litigation, and that of our clients is that we want Facebook to be held accountable to the terms and conditions and its own policies. Facebook makes these express promises to its users that they own their own data, and they control their own privacy. And it does seem, when you use the application that that is in fact what you are doing. Through the privacy settings, but now we know that that is not true. So, we want Facebook to keep its promises, in order to not only prevent the information that's already been compromised from being used and in future elections like the midterm elections coming up, but also to implement protocols to promote these breaches from ever occurring again in the future. >> And Amy, what are some of the big questions about the data breach that are still left unanswered? >> We certainly do not know a lot of things, we don't know the extent of the breach, we don't know what information of the vast stores of information that they spoke keeps on its users, has actually been disclosed, we do not know where the data is, we do not know, we don't have any independent confirmation of weather, Cambridge analytical or, the people involved in that company, have actually deleted the data that was obtained, through this breach. >> When you talk about protocols or regulations, imposed upon Facebook to make sure it lives up to its promises, what would they look like? >> That's an excellent question and it's one that we are working on in conjunction with experts in the field. So, it will be evolving in the coming weeks and months, the most important thing that we want to focus on is getting those protocols to protect the data from being breached without its users expressed consent, especially in advance of the upcoming November midterms. >> I have been speaking with Amy Johnsgard of the Coast Law group in San Diego. Amy, thank you. >> Thank you.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged Wednesday that regulation of social media companies is "inevitable" and disclosed that his own personal information has been compromised by malicious outsiders. But after two days of congressional testimony, what seemed clear was how little Congress seems to know about Facebook, much less what to do about it.
House lawmakers aggressively questioned Zuckerberg Wednesday on user data, privacy settings and whether the company is biased against conservatives. As they did in the Senate a day earlier, both Republicans and Democrats suggested that regulation might be needed, but there was no consensus and few specifics about what that might look like - or even what the biggest problems are.
New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the panel and a 30-year veteran of the House, said at the beginning of the hearing that he plans to work on legislation but is pessimistic that Congress will pass anything.
"I've just seen it over and over again - that we have the hearings, and nothing happens," he said.
For Zuckerberg, who often found himself explaining what his company does in rudimentary terms to lawmakers twice his age, the hearings could be considered a win: Facebook shares rose more than 1 percent after climbing 4.5 percent on Monday. And his company regained more than $25 billion in market value that is had lost since it was revealed in March that Cambridge Analytica, a data-mining firm affiliated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign, gathered personal information from 87 million users to try to influence elections.
Still, Facebook's stock remains 10 percent below where it stood before the scandal, a decline that has wiped out about $50 billion in shareholder wealth.
Zuckerberg agreed to the hearings as pressure mounted over the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the company's own admission last year that it had been compromised by Russians trying to influence the 2016 election. Earlier this year, special counsel Robert Mueller charged 13 Russian individuals and three Russian companies in a plot to interfere in the 2016 presidential election through a social media propaganda effort that included online ad purchases using U.S. aliases and politicking on U.S. soil. A number of the Russian ads were on Facebook.
Zuckerberg told the Senate on Tuesday that the company has been working with Mueller in his Russia probe and apologized over and over again for the company's handling of data privacy.
"I started Facebook, I run it, and I'm responsible for what happens here," he said.
House lawmakers were a bit tougher on Zuckerberg than their colleagues in the Senate, many of whom seemed confused by the company and what it does. Some of the House members curtly cut him off in questioning, trying to make the most of their four minutes each.
Zuckerberg mostly held his composure, repeating many of the same well-rehearsed answers: He is sorry for the company's mistakes. He is working on artificial intelligence technology to weed out hate speech and at the same time ensure that they don't block people for the wrong reasons. People own their own data, as far as he sees it. And he's come a long way since he created the platform in his dorm room almost 15 years ago.
Some of the lawmakers talked to Zuckerberg, 33, as they would their children or grandchildren, and were occasionally befuddled by the complexities of his company.
Wrapping up his four minutes, Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., commended the platform, saying "it's wonderful for us seniors to connect with our relatives."
By the close of Wednesday's hearing, Zuckerberg had spent roughly 10 out of the previous 24 hours testifying before Congress.
On regulation, Zuckerberg said he was open to it.
"The internet is growing in importance around the world in people's lives and I think that it is inevitable that there will need to be some regulation," he said.
Still, he said, lawmakers need to be careful, noting that new rules or laws could hurt smaller businesses more than a behemoth like Facebook.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden said the committee will look at what could be done.
"While Facebook has certainly grown, I worry it has not matured," Walden, R-Ore., told Zuckerberg. "I think it is time to ask whether Facebook may have moved too fast and broken too many things."
Many questions focused on Cambridge Analytica, which gathered data several years ago through a personality quiz created by an academic researcher. The app vacuumed up not just the data of the people who took it, but also - thanks to Facebook's loose restrictions - data from their friends, too, including details that they hadn't intended to share publicly. Cambridge Analytica then obtained the data and was said to have used it to try to influence elections around the world.
Zuckerberg said at the House hearing that his own Facebook data was part of that sweep. He told the Senate that Facebook had been led to believe Cambridge Analytica had deleted the user data it had harvested and that had been "clearly a mistake." He assured senators the company would have handled the situation differently today.
That may be enough to satisfy lawmakers for now. But that could change if Democrats take control of Congress in midterm elections this year.
Pallone said that if Democrats were in charge, "then we would push all the more.
