Exclusive: Sarah Wynn-Williams faces $50,000 fine every time she breaches order banning her from criticising Meta

Exclusive: Sarah Wynn-Williams faces $50,000 fine every time she breaches order banning her from criticising Meta

A former Meta executive who wrote an explosive exposé making allegations about the social media company’s dealings with China and its treatment of teenagers is said to be “on the verge of bankruptcy” after publishing the book.

An MP has claimed in parliament that Mark Zuckerberg’s company was trying to “silence and punish” Sarah Wynn-Williams, the former director of global public policy at Meta’s precursor, Facebook, after her decision to speak out about her time at the company.

Louise Haigh, the former Labour transport secretary, said Wynn-Williams was facing a fine of $50,000 (£37,000) every time she breached an order secured by Meta preventing her from talking disparagingly about the company.

  • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 hour ago

    I bought a copy, and this bullshit. We should be making her a millionaire. This book needs to become a number 1 bestseller.

  • Bwoj@lemmy.world
    34·
    6 hours ago

    Usually I would expect the truth to be a defense against defamation. Looks like binding arbitration is an end run around that.

    • d00phy@lemmy.world
      11·
      3 hours ago

      I’m not a lawyer, but I thought this kind of NDA was declared illegal. Like for sure you can’t share legally protected data (copyright, trade secret, and the like) but talking disparagingly seems like a pretty obvious first amendment violation.

      And I know that protects you from the government, but who’s enforcing the stipulations of such an NDA?

      • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
        8·
        2 hours ago

        She’s in America. We no longer even respect our Constitution. So at this point, any existing law is easily avoided by the rich with money and time. If you are unable to pay lawyers to fight back, you get railroaded and bleed out.

      • hector@lemmy.today
        8·
        3 hours ago

        Nda’s do not traditionally cover illegal activities either. Like if you were illegally trafficking puppies and you broke the NDA to expose that, that NDA was illegal to begin with and not enforceable. The courts are just so corrupt now they are just going along pretending to not be sold out plutocratic tools.

  • bagsy@lemmy.world
    311·
    6 hours ago

    If you ever want to know who rules you, look at who you aren’t allowed to criticize.