The usual reminders apply: you can allege pretty much anything in such a brief, and "court filing" does not endow the argument with authority. And, the press corps is constrained for space, so their summary of a 230-page brief is necessarily lacking.

The converse story about the defendants' briefs would have the headline "Plaintiffs full of shit, US court filing alleges" but you wouldn't take Meta's defense at face value either, I assume.

https://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/2025-11-21-Brief-dckt-2480...

▲

pinnochio 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is a weird comment to make, given that they're citing "Meta documents obtained via discovery."

Doesn't seem like you're making this comment in good faith, and/or you're very invested in Meta somehow.

	▲	jeffbee 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Every time they contact me I tell Meta recruiters that I wouldn't stoop to work for a B-list chucklehead like Zuck, and that has been my policy for over 15 years, so no.

▲

add-sub-mul-div 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're not speaking to a jury. Regular people just living their lives only have to use their best judgment and life experience to decide which side they think is right. We don't need to be coerced into neutrality just because neither side has presented hard proof.