National

Media Trends

Axios Media Trends

Axios AM

Meta will reinstate former President Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts "in coming weeks" following a two-year suspension, according to Nick Clegg, the company's president, global affairs.

Why it matters: The decision sets a new precedent for how the company treats world leaders, and it could change the trajectory of the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

"We've always believed that Americans should be able to hear from the people who want to lead the country," Clegg told Axios. "We don't want to stand in the way of that."

Flashback: Facebook, along with Twitter and many other social media platforms, barred Trump soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol for breaking their rules and over fears of further incitements to violence. 

The big picture: The reinstatement of Trump's accounts will allow him to run ads via his Facebook and Instagram pages, which have 34 million and 23 million followers, respectively.

Trump relied heavily on Facebook ads in previous election cycles for fundraising and list-building. 

Under Elon Musk, Twitter has also reinstated Trump's account, but he has not posted yet, continuing to rely on his account at Truth Social instead.

Yes, but: Trump will be subject to new policies that Meta has created following feedback from its independent Oversight Board that could restrict his accounts — including his ability to run ads — should he violate the company's policies in the future.

"We just do not want — if he is to return to our services — for him to do what he did on January 6, which is to use our services to delegitimize the 2024 election, much as he sought to discredit the 2020 election," Clegg said. 

His accounts will not be reinstated immediately, Clegg said, because Meta's engineers will need time to build out some of the new functionality necessary to restrict certain posts or ad capabilities in the future, if needed. 

How it works: Trump will be subject to new policies around restricting accounts by public figures during civil unrest. Under those policies, Meta can decide to restrict the account of a public figure that violates its community standards for a time ranging from one month to two years.

Trump will also be subject to a crisis policy protocol, introduced by Meta in August, that will consider both on and off-platform risks of imminent harm to evaluating whether the actions or speech of any public figures requires sanctioning.

"If he now posts further violating content, that content will be removed, of course, and he could be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation," Clegg said.

Be smart: For actions or speech that don't explicitly violate Meta's community standards, Clegg said the company will retain discretion to take action, and may enforce different types of guardrails, including limiting the distribution of posts without removing them or temporarily restricting access to its advertising tools.

"Oblique references to QAnon content, for instance ... is the kind of material that — even if it's done obliquely, and doesn't violate our community standards — we would seek to restrict the distribution of the content and/or restrict his ability to advertise," he said. 

These steps would allow content to remain visible on Trump's account but not get distributed in users' feeds, even for those that follow the former president.

For example, Meta may opt to remove the "re-share" button from such posts, and may stop them from being recommended or run as ads. 

Of note: If Trump posts content that violates the company's standards, but falls within Meta's characterization of "newsworthy content" — meaning the public interest in understanding what Trump said outweighs any potential harm — the company may opt to restrict the distribution of the content but leave it up. 

What they're saying: After Axios reported the news of Facebook's decision, Trump, in a post at Truth Social, said, "FACEBOOK, which has lost Billions of Dollars in value since 'deplatforming' your favorite President, me, has just announced that they are reinstating my account. Such a thing should never again happen to a sitting President..."

Between the lines: Clegg said Meta did not speak with Trump or any of his associates leading up to the decision being made and has no insight as to whether he plans to use his accounts once reinstated.

"We saw that his team had written to us publicly — I think they were asking for a meeting with Mark and myself and Joel [Kaplan]. That meeting did not take place," Clegg said, referring to Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and Meta vice president for U.S. public policy Joel Kaplan. 

Trump was not briefed on the decision to lift his suspension before it was made public, Clegg said. He noted that the company will "always make ourselves available to explain and emphasize the policies that we've laid out."

"I think it would help if Donald Trump's team was as well informed as possible about where these lines are drawn and how these guardrails will operate," Clegg said.

"This whole process was really about our decision on our terms," he noted.  

Catch up quick: Meta initially banned Trump from posting on his Facebook and Instagram accounts for at least two weeks following the Capitol attack, until President Biden's inauguration.

Several months later — in response to guidance from Facebook's independent Oversight Board to revisit its decision — the company said Trump's ban would last two years, beginning with his initial suspension on Jan. 7, 2021.

Meta has been the subject of criticism from both the right and left over how it handles content moderation, especially over its handling of noteworthy figures during times of crisis or unrest.

Conservatives have alleged that the company's ban of Trump and others' accounts constitutes censorship, while progressives have argued that Meta hasn't done enough to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation in real time. 

To help shield Zuckerberg from some of that pressure and criticism, the company promoted Clegg last year to a new role that gives him complete oversight of policy decisions, like the one to reinstate Trump's account. 

Clegg said the decision to bring Trump back was "not remotely" made for business reasons. "In general terms, it's not great for business to be, you know, dragged into and embroiled in controversy," he said.

The bottom line: "I am the the ultimate decision maker on these kinds of issues in the company," Clegg said.

Editor's note: This story is breaking news and will be updated.

Exclusive: Facebook to reinstate Trump

The decision will end a two-year ban and allow Trump to post and raise money using the platforms.

Photo of former President Trump speaking at a rally podium

 Former President Trump speaks at a rally in November in Vandalia, Ohio. Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Facebook

Donald Trump

Big Tech

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

From the Valley to D.C., Big Tech players like Facebook, Google and Amazon are under more scrutiny than ever as new technology develops and privacy and antitrust concerns grow in lockstep with companies’ ambitions.

Technology

The U.S. government's latest legal assault on Big Tech asks a court to make Google sell off a chunk of its massive, phenomenally profitable digital advertising business.

Why it matters: The Department of Justice's new suit against Google, filed Tuesday, brings to a crescendo an antitrust campaign against tech's most powerful giants that has consumed both Washington and Silicon Valley for half a decade — and is likely to take just as long for courts to resolve.

Yes, but: There's no guarantee that this latest case, even if the DOJ wins it all, would end or even limit the company's dominance of the online ad industry.

By the numbers: The part of Google's ad machine that DOJ wants to see spun out involve the company's "network" ad business, which sells ads on others' inventory. That category accounts for roughly 12% of parent company Alphabet's overall revenue.

Having to spin out key pieces of the company's ad-tech structure would be difficult and would certainly hurt revenue and growth potential. But it doesn't constitute "breaking up" Google, as some have described the government's goal.

Just as importantly, the case — like every large, complex antitrust trial — is likely to take years in court, and in that time Google could find ways to bolster its ad business to protect itself from a damaging divestiture. 

Catch up quick: Google acquired ad-tech pioneer DoubleClick in 2007 for $3.1 billion, and over the years DoubleClick's services became Google Ad Manager, which is what the government now wants Google to divest. 

The DOJ alleges that the acquisition and Google's subsequent behavior brought the company overwhelming power in the online ad market that it used to illegally shut out competitors and worsen experiences for advertisers and users.

What they're saying: "Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct that has severely weakened, if not destroyed, competition in the ad tech industry," Attorney General Merrick Garland told reporters today.

"First, Google controls the technology used by nearly every major website publisher to offer advertising space for sale. Second, Google controls the leading tool used by advertisers to buy that advertising space. And third, Google controls the largest ad exchange that matches publishers and advertisers together each time that ad space is sold," Garland said.

"As a result of this scheme, website creators earn less and advertisers pay more."

The suit seeks to make Google sell off its Ad Manager suite. It also seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction preventing Google from continuing to engage in the alleged anticompetitive practices.

The other side: Google argues the DOJ’s suit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector."

Google's ad programs "help publishers make money to fund their websites, apps and videos — which helps Internet users access a wide range of free content," Dan Taylor, Google's VP of global ads, wrote in a blog post.

"We’ve spent years building and investing in our advertising technology business to support a vibrant, open web. We will vigorously contest attempts to break tools that are working for publishers, advertisers, and people across America."

Between the lines: The case is more compelling than some other Google antitrust cases because of all the money tied up in digital advertising, and that makes it  "more of a straightforward antitrust case, more central to marketplace competition," Charles F. "Rick" Rule, a former DOJ official and chair of antitrust law firm Rule Garza Howley, told Axios.

"This case is a little different historically from a lot of monopolization cases because the DOJ is going into it with an idea of what kind of remedy it wants," Rule said.

"They're laying out a roadmap that I'm sure will be part of the litigation," he added. "I imagine they will push pretty hard for some sort of structural remedy and not settle for something short of what they think is satisfactory."

Be smart: The new DOJ suit closely resembles a lawsuit brought by state attorneys general led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in 2020. That gives  Google something of a head start on a defense that it has been preparing for two years.

The big picture: The lawsuit comes as Google struggles to maintain its momentum in an ad market slowdown. 

 Advertising makes up the great majority, or 81%, of Alphabet's $256 billion annual revenues (for 2021).

Alphabet reported a 27% drop in profits year-over-year in the third quarter last year due to a dramatic slowdown in ad sales, and will report fourth quarter earnings next week.

What to watch: The lawsuit will likely push Google to increase its focus on other fast-growing parts of its business beyond advertising, like AI and Google Cloud.

DOJ's new suit puts Google's ad business at risk

The government wants the search giant to sell off a key chunk of its ad-tech business.

Illustration of a giant Google logo next to a small person pulling a slingshot aiming at the logo. 

Google

After a record economic expansion, the coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy into a recession as unemployment soared to staggering heights. The country now faces urgent questions about how much stimulus is needed for reeling consumers and businesses, and what a recovery might look like.

Economy & Business

The Justice Department and eight states on Tuesday filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google's parent company Alphabet, accusing the tech giant of illegally abusing its dominance in digital advertising and violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Why it matters: It's the second major antitrust lawsuit filed against Google by the Justice Department in the last three years, and if successful it could force Google sell off much of its ad business. 

The DOJ and a coalition of state attorneys general sued Google in 2020 for allegedly using anticompetitive tactics to illegally monopolize the online search and search advertising markets. That lawsuit is ongoing. 

Details: "Competition in the ad tech space is broken, for reasons that were neither accidental nor inevitable," the filing reads. "One industry behemoth, Google, has corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, to facilitate digital advertising."

Bloomberg reported Monday that the lawsuit was imminent. 

The suit is seeking a judgment that Google has unlawfully monopolized both the publisher ad server market and advertiser ad network in the U.S. and acted unlawfully by tying products together.

What they're saying: "Today’s lawsuit from the DOJ attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector. It largely duplicates an unfounded lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General, much of which was recently dismissed by a federal court. DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow," a Google spokesperson said in a statement.

The big picture: Google is already under heavy antitrust scrutiny around the world and faces anger from U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The case is also a major test for President Joe Biden's antitrust officials, who have been vocal about wanting to rein in the power and dominance of the biggest tech companies.

By the numbers: Google earned $209 billion in ad revenue in 2021, making it the largest advertising company in the world. By comparison, Meta — the second-largest ad company globally — made around $115 billion in ad revenue that same year. 

The vast majority of Google's revenue (81% in 2021) comes from advertising. 

Last year, Google's ad business took a hit thanks to economic headwinds impacting the growth of the global ad market.

The company will report its full-year earnings report next week. It's still expected to bring in more than $200 billion in ad revenue for the full year. 

Catch up quick: Google's advertising dominance stems, in part, from a handful of ad tech acquisitions that regulators argue have given it a leg up on ad-serving over its competitors.

In 2007, it purchased DoubleClick — an ad-serving company — for $3.1 billion, giving it access to a vast online marketplace where Google could sell display ads to place on the websites of thousands of online publishers.

In 2010, it acquired AdMob — a mobile ad network — for $750 million in stock, allowing Google to plant a flag in the quickly-growing mobile ad business that grew with the iPhone market.

Be smart: The lawsuit could meaningfully slow advances in Google's ad business at a time when it's starting to show signs of weakness thanks to the economy and growing competition from e-commerce companies like Amazon and streaming firms.

The company announced last week that it plans to lay off 12,000 workers to offset its rapid expansion during the pandemic.

The biggest proponents of antitrust action against Google's ad business have long been online publishers and smaller tech firms. 

Flashback: Google has been hit with numerous antitrust penalties over the past five years in the U.S. and Europe, worth many billions of dollars. It has also paid hundreds of millions in data privacy settlements in the U.S. 

2017: European antitrust officials charged Google $2.7 billion fine for abusing its search practices, more than double what was expected.

2018: European antitrust officials again charged Google €4.1 billion for abusing the dominance of Android. The penalty was upheld, although slightly reduced, last year after Google tried to appeal the ruling. 

2019: European antitrust officials charged Google $1.7 billion for abusing its advertising dominance. 

2020: The U.S. DOJ and state attorneys general sued Google over its search dominance. 

What's next: Google now has a chance to respond to the DOJ's initial complaint, and the process will be slow. Typical antitrust suits of this scale can take years to resolve, and some have taken more than a decade.

Editor's note: This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

Justice Department sues Google over alleged search monopoly

Google, DOJ square off over search dominance

Here's what the U.S. antitrust case charges Google with

Google denies DOJ's antitrust claims in filing

Justice Department sues Google for "corrupting" ad market

It's the second major antitrust lawsuit filed against Google by the DOJ in the last three years.

Illustration of a gavel with the Google logo on the block

Media

The “Right to Repair” movement championing owners' freedom to fix everything from smartphones to tractors is set for a landmark new year, as tech companies roll out user repair programs and state legislatures weigh broader consumer protections.

Why it matters: Advocates say restrictions on owners' ability to repair their devices, shaped by tough intellectual property protections, have cost consumers money and reduced the lifespan of their products.

What’s happening: 2023 has kicked off with rising momentum for right to repair advocates.

In the last days of 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Digital Fair Repair Act into law, calling the Empire State the “first state in the nation to guarantee the right to repair.”

John Deere signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation on Jan. 8, to “enhance the ability of Farmers to timely control the lawful operation and upkeep of Agricultural Equipment.”

Both Apple and Samsung have recently expanded their self-repair programs to encompass more devices.

The big picture: State legislatures have introduced a host of new repair bills in the last few weeks.

 At least 14 state houses have introduced new bills so far, Nathan Proctor, right to repair campaign director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group,  tells Axios. These proposals aim to provide consumers a pathway to repair everything from tablets to farm equipment.

“If you're looking at what one of these companies really fears, I don't think it's a bill in Congress as much as 22 different bills in states that are all slightly different,” Proctor told Axios. “That's the nightmare scenario.”

Efforts to provide consumers with tools, parts and access to their tech’s internals have picked up in the last few years.

The FTC released a report in May 2021 that found "scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions."

Shortly after, the Biden administration charged federal agencies in an executive order to make it “easier and cheaper to repair items you own by limiting manufacturers from barring self-repairs.”

The nation’s first right to repair law, enacted in Colorado last summer, specifically focused on wheelchairs. 

“After a decade of trying, we get two [state laws] in a very short period of time,”  iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens told Axios. “Every single day, I'm seeing a couple more states file a new bill. And I think we're going to be over 20 states very soon and those bills are moving.”

Flashback: Right to repair advocates point to the turn of millennium as the moment when powerful tech producers sealed devices away in hermetic casing and terms-of-service stipulations.

With software embedded in an ever-widening range of products, laws protecting code — like 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act — came to apply to more and more hardware.

As the longstanding era of TV/radio repair shops faded away, a partially broken device often had to be sent back to the manufacturer to fix, or replaced entirely.

“We've been pushed into this,” Proctor said. “How did we wake up in a world where changing a battery was too dangerous to do? They benefit from us not having that power.”

The other side: Tech companies have long maintained that opening up devices could decrease their performance, expose company secrets, reduce cybersecurity protections or put the safety of customers at risk.

“Allowing unvetted third parties with access to sensitive diagnostic information, software, tools, and parts would jeopardize the safety and security of consumers’ devices and put consumers at risk for fraud,” Carl Holshouser, senior vice president of industry association TechNet, told Politico last year.

“Creating greater access to Apple genuine parts gives our customers even more choice if a repair is needed,” said Jeff Williams, Apple’s chief operating officer. “In the past three years, Apple has nearly doubled the number of service locations with access to Apple genuine parts, tools, and training, and now we’re providing an option for those who wish to complete their own repairs.” 

Yes, but: Advocates still see a long fight ahead.

Right to repair is having a “watershed moment...But there's also a lot of opportunities for mischief," Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director at The Repair Association, tells Axios. 

New York’s new law has already faced criticism that it was weakened by last-minute changes and concessions to manufacturers.

Gordon-Byrne said the John Deere agreement has  “absolutely no enforcement in it at all."

Apple rolled out its repair program at the end of 2021. But iFixit's Wiens calls the program “malicious compliance” over its limitations and cost. 

What’s next: “2023 is all about consolidating the gains from New York and making sure that all of all the rest of the products that should have been in that bill are covered somewhere,” Gordon-Byrne said.

“I think it's time to start looking beyond Apple and Samsung and looking at Sony and LG and all these other brands that are making hundreds of millions of dollars selling electronics to us without a repair option,” Wiens said.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a comment that Apple shared with Axios on Friday (but was not immediately seen).

Flood of "right to repair" bills signals DIY watershed

Advocates say access to repair devices would save consumers money and reduce waste.

Mechanic lying underneath smartphone, doing repairs.

Intellectual property

Former President Trump told Fox News Wednesday that his campaign is seeking reinstatement on Facebook as he ramps up his 2024 bid for president. 

Why it matters: Trump was banned from several social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, after the Jan. 6 insurrection. He said he is now working to set up a meeting to discuss his reinstatement with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

What he's saying: Facebook "needs us more than we need them," he said in an interview with Fox News, claiming that the social media giant has "lost $700 billion since I was de-platformed."

"It has been considered a major business mistake for them, Twitter and others."

"If they took us back, it would help them greatly, and that's okay with me," Trump added.

The big picture: Facebook was Trump's main vehicle for digital fundraising ads in 2020. Having access to his accounts would enable him to run ads from his personal pages during the 2024 election.

Facebook has also served as a platform for extremists, many of whom gathered online and planned the assault on the Capitol.

After the Capitol riots, Facebook said it would ban Trump from its platform for two years.

The Trump campaign's general counsel formally requested a meeting with Meta executives in a letter Tuesday, noting that the two-year period lapsed on Jan. 7.

Yes, but: Tech accountability groups are urging Meta to keep Trump off its platforms, citing potential damage spurred by his dangerous rhetoric and false claims of election fraud.

Worth noting: Twitter reinstated Trump's account after Elon Musk took over the company.

Editor's note: This is a breaking news story and will be updated with more information. 

Trump: Facebook "needs" him as former President's campaign seeks reinstatement

Trump was banned from several social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Donald Trump stands in front of U.S. flags as he speaks at a 2024 campaign event in Florida. 

Former US President Donald Trump arrives to speak at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, US, on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2022. Photographer: Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Login

Axios Login

Microsoft notified employees on Wednesday it will cut 10,000 workers, or less than 5% of its workforce, as it joins other large tech firms in paring staff after years of growth.

Why it matters: Each of these big tech workforce reductions, themselves a response to a softening economy, puts further pressure on the rest of the industry to cut costs.

The cuts will be made before the end of its fiscal third quarter, with some employees being notified immediately, according to a memo from CEO Satya Nadella.

It is taking a $1.2 billion charge to cover severance and other costs, which will include "changes to our hardware portfolio."

Microsoft says it will continue to hire in key areas.

The big picture: Microsoft joins a growing list of large tech firms that have recently cut staff, a roster that includes Amazon, Meta, Salesforce, Twitter and Snap, among others.

What they're saying: "These are the kinds of hard choices we have made throughout our 47-year history to remain a consequential company in this industry that is unforgiving to anyone who doesn't adapt to platform shifts," Nadella told employees.

What to expect when your tech firm is downsizing

Microsoft is laying off 10,000 employees

It joins a growing list of Big Tech firms cutting staff.

Illustration of a calculator with colorful buttons that make up the squares of the Microsoft logo

Microsoft

Old orders are fading while new ones fight to come into focus as the tech world enters a year of deep flux.

In every corner of the industry, incumbent powers are faltering, and major new technologies and players have arrived but not yet cemented their sway. 

TikTok has reshaped the flow of online culture, making its short-video format and global "discovery" algorithm into dominant channels for sharing ideas and trends.

In the field: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and other competitors have tried to copy TikTok but still seen it steal their business.

Yes, but: TikTok's Chinese ownership has made it a target for hostile regulators and legislators in Washington, and despite its popularity, the platform's future in the U.S. remains very much up in the air.

The big question: U.S. authorities will either demand stringent conditions for TikTok to continue to operate in its current structure or force the company to sell to an American owner.

Apple is said to be ready to roll out its long-awaited augmented-reality goggles this spring, making what could be its biggest new-product splash since the iPhone's unveiling 15 years ago. 

In the field: Apple's Reality Pro headset (as it's rumored to be named) will challenge Meta's position as metaverse market leader.

Yes, but: Apple's many delays for launching the new product suggest it has already faced many roadblocks, and a likely high price point and technical hurdles could make its debut rocky.

The big question: Despite the ferment and excitement around headsets, no one has yet proved they have real-world applications beyond gaming. Apple's goggles might still be too early for the mass market: instead of being the next iPhone, they could be the next Newton.

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT threaten to replace the 20-year reign of Google's web search with a chattier Q&A interface. 

In the field: Microsoft's backing of and close ties to ChatGPT creator OpenAI could finally give it an edge in its long-stymied effort to compete with Google Search.

Yes, but: Generative AI still can't cite sources or distinguish between fact and fiction, and scrupulous users may prefer to stick with traditional search. Meanwhile, Google has some potent generative AI tech of its own, but has been more cautious about deploying it.

The big question: Generative AI programs have proven they're capable of mimicking human creativity, and we know they're capable of disrupting any business that involves words and pictures. But nobody has yet shown how they will either make money or win people's hearts and minds.

Tech platforms will spend the year defending themselves from charges by the new GOP House that they're biased and limit free speech. 

Assertive antitrust action by the FTC and the Justice Department will make it harder for tech giants to purchase smaller rivals, opening space for newcomers to grow.

Crypto and web3 believers will try to restore trust in their projects after the dramatic collapse of FTX while financial regulators keep turning the screws.

Zoom out: A potential recession, higher interest rates and sagging stock prices have checked the tech industry's confidence. But no one knows whether this year will bring renewed exuberance or a deeper economic swoon. 

The bottom line: Tech's eras have always been reset during times of retrenchment. 

Think of the early '90s, when the internet took off; the millennium's dotcom bust, which spawned Google; and the Great Recession of 2008-9, which ushered in the smartphone.

In 2023 the industry is primed and ready for a similar transition.

Tech's next big fights

The industry enters 2023 with incumbents faltering but new firms and technologies not yet fully emerged.

Illustration of two 8-bit fists hitting each other.

A judge ruled that laid-off Twitter workers who are suing the social media company over their termination must pursue claims in individual arbitration and not a class-action lawsuit, Reuters reports. 

Driving the news: U.S. District Judge James Donato said the ex-Twitter employees, who allege the social media company did not give adequate time before their terminations, must drop their group suit. 

Donato, in his decision to side with Twitter, cited agreements the former employees signed with the company, per Reuters.

Judge says Twitter workers can't pursue group lawsuit

The judge cited agreements the former employees signed with the company.

Big Tech

The big picture

Zuckerberg rebuts Facebook whistleblower testimony

Snap hires first Global Head of Platform Safety

Scoop: Jim Messina aims to shape cryptocurrency future

Ranking the 5 big suits against Google and Facebook

Big Tech's reckoning on race

Tech giants' life cycles shape their crisis responses

All Big Tech stories