Details: The lawsuit, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that the packaging fees that talent agents take as a part of representing writers are illegal under California and federal law. “The plaintiffs will seek a judicial declaration that packaging fees are unlawful and an injunction prohibiting talent agencies from entering into future packaging deals,” WGA West general counsel Tony Segall said in a statement.

• In response, the ATA said WGA leadership was on a “predetermined path to chaos” and that “leaders are unnecessarily forcing their members and our industry into long-term uncertainty.”

Between the lines: The fundamental issue that’s being disputed is a complicated one. The Guild argues that Hollywood's biggest talent agencies are undercutting the writers they represent by moving from a long-standing percentage-cut payout model to a model focused around packaging fees and production.

• This has gotten more attention lately as talent agencies continue to invest in production companies and events as new sources of revenue.
• The 2 groups met several times last week to try to strike a deal before the extended deadline to renew their decades-old former contract expired, but were unable to come to an agreement.

Bottom line: The drama unfolding right now in Hollywood is so unprecedented, it could be its own movie.

Go deeper: Hollywood at war: Thousands of writers told to axe agents at midnight

Why it matters: The situation highlights how messy and complicated fact-checking can be on Facebook — as well as on tech platforms generally, who do not want to exercise editorial responsibility for content that gets posted.

Details: According to a Facebook spokesperson, the agreement struck between Poynter and Facebook in 2016 requires Facebook to accept these entities as a part of its own fact-checking program.

• Facebook originally outsourced the practice of selecting fact-checkers to Poynter via this partnership in 2016 to avoid having to make any decisions about fact-checkers that could be clouded as biased.

Between the lines: Poynter's International Fact-Checking Network is considered credible, and is used to enforce standards for fact-checking broadly, not just at Facebook.

• The board is made up of well-known fact-checkers from around the world, including from the Washington Post and Poynter.
• The IFCN board votes on certification of fact-checkers without any input from Facebook or other partners.
• It looks at a set of criteria when reviewing fact-checking partners to be a part of its network, including non-partisanship and fairness, transparency of sources, transparency of funding and more.

Yes, but: Just because an outlet is approved as part of the fact-checking network doesn't mean that it's not partisan.

Facebook has come under fire for working with certain fact-checking partners in the past. Most notably, it was criticized — particularly by left-leaning outlets — for adding The Weekly Standard as a fact-checking partner in September before the publication shut down several months ago.

• In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review in September, Alexios Mantzarlis, who ran the International Fact-Checking Network at the time, said of The Weekly Standard's approval: "I’m not denying The Weekly Standard is a partisan publication, but the decision we made was that we would look at the partisanship of the fact-checking operation itself, not the entire publication."

The bottom line: Facebook has decided to outsource the approval of fact-checkers, which both saves it from having to make editorial decisions while also forcing it to incorporate fact-checking partners that could be considered controversial.

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Science Feedback does not have a website.

Driving the news: NBC's Olivia Solon and Cyrus Farivar reviewed 4,000 pages of documents — including emails, webchats, presentations and meeting summaries, mostly from 2011 through 2015 — leaked from the proceedings of a U.K. lawsuit brought by the maker of a now-defunct app against Facebook.

• The NBC story concludes that Zuckerberg personally oversaw plans years ago to use consumer data as leverage to disadvantage competitors, and that he worked with Facebook's communications team to help spin the narrative that changes to its policies were attributable to privacy concerns.
• NBC reports that the documents show evidence Zuckerberg was less concerned about the privacy implications of the handling of users' data than about the financial implications.
• The report finds examples in which Zuckerberg, along with other high-level Facebook executives, discussed rewarding companies they liked by giving them access to users' data.
• It also reaffirms previous reports that under Zuckerberg's guidance, Facebook denied some rival companies' access to user data.
• Facebook told NBC the documents were "cherrypicked" by its legal adversary.

Between the lines: Zuckerberg has insisted that Facebook has never sold user data to advertisers or other companies, and that seems to continue to be literally true.

• What these documents suggest is that the company's leader has long viewed users' personal data as a business asset — and that, at one point, he seriously considered putting a price tag on other companies' access to such information.
• That point will be of great interest to the antitrust regulators circling Facebook, both at home in the U.S. and in the EU.

Meanwhile: A Wired account of Facebook's crisis-plagued last year sheds new light on the company's seeming paralysis in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica revelations a year ago, when it took Facebook leaders five days before responding to the controversy.

• Reasons for the silence included: Facebook didn't know all the facts, didn't understand how angry its critics and the public were, and believed that the data Cambridge Analytica accessed wasn't very valuable.
• But also, Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein write: "Executives didn’t want a repeat of Zuckerberg’s ignominious performance after the 2016 election when, mostly off the cuff, he had proclaimed it 'a pretty crazy idea' to think fake news had affected the result."

Since then, Zuckerberg has been on a roll.

• His belated response to the Cambridge Analytica story was gaffe-free.
• His answers a month later to fuzzy-minded questioning from Congress gave critics no further ammunition.
• Today he's on a PR offensive that includes hosting a series of conversations on the future of technology and society.
• In response to the endless run of privacy controversies, he announced a broad plan to reorganize all of Facebook around encrypted group messaging, moving it from a global town square to a provider of semi-private spaces.

The big picture: Despite Facebook's endless trials, Zuckerberg has never been more in charge.

• The founders of Instagram and WhatsApp, the giant messaging apps Facebook acquired, have all departed, giving him room to integrate those services more tightly with Facebook.
• His longtime right-hand product leader, Chris Cox, also recently resigned, apparently because of differences over Zuckerberg's new "pivot to privacy."

The bottom line: Zuckerberg's power won't be reined in by either his board or his shareholders.

• Shareholders submitted initiatives for a proxy vote Tuesday ahead of Facebook's investor meeting on May 30.
• Several of the proposals for governance changes were less than flattering of Zuckerberg's tenure as CEO, and some called for efforts to limit his power on the board.
• As long as Zuckerberg controls the votes, that won't happen.