FTC v. Meta: Meta's lead attorney disparaged tech journalists Kara Swisher and Om Malik, calling Malik a “failed blogger”, resurfacing years-old media tensions
Meta's lead attorney called a once-prominent tech journalist a “failed blogger.” Bluesky: @wavesblog , @karaswisher , @karaswisher , @quillmatiq.com , and @anildash.com X: @jason_kint , @jason_kint , @superwuster , @jason_kint , @bbenedict33 , @superwuster , @superwuster , and @jason_kint Bluesky: Simonetta Vezzoso / @wavesblog : “Failed blogger 🏅” Trying myself since 2007! [embedded post] Kara Swisher / @karaswisher : Boy, is Meta desperate or what? Om Malik is a pioneer in tech media entrepreneurship and I wrote some freelance pieces for Vanity Fair a decade ago. You'd think their high priced lawyers were smarter. www.theverge.com/politics/666... Kara Swisher / @karaswisher : And I stand by my assessment after years of coverage that Mark is indeed a shriveled soul. Anuj Ahooja / @quillmatiq.com : Gotta wonder at which point the oligarchs' LLM chatbots also start misrepresenting those who hold them accountable [embedded post] Anil Dash / @anildash.com : One of the reasons Meta will always undermine Om, despite the fact that Om is a legend in tech journalism, is because he simply told the truth about Andreessen's endorsement of colonialism in India being a reprehensible thing for a Facebook board member to do. And Meta enabled genocide. [embedded post] X: Jason Kint / @jason_kint : + @karaswisher @om as they should be aware. I'll pull the transcript. Quite ironic after Meta took offense to FTC noting Ben Thompson was an analyst in Taiwan. Jason Kint / @jason_kint : Terrible look, Meta. Meta just called Om Malik a “failed blogger” and Kara Swisher a “vanity fair” [columnist] in Judge Boasberg's courtroom while trying to impeach FTC's witness who cited examples of public discourse. Meta's attorney smugly laughing at times in front row. Tim Wu / @superwuster : One interesting slide showed that during major holidays sharing on Facebook & Instagram goes up, but others (like YouTube or Tiktok) dont move in synch with the family / friend networks Jason Kint / @jason_kint : Just a garbage thing to do by Meta's lawyers considering the prominence and respecting both have had in chronicling our industry. And now they're trying to generate PR in confusing the relevant antitrust market. We're on break. Caution press on Meta spin factory. Brendan Benedict / @bbenedict33 : This Tweet is now at issue in #ftcvmeta trial, as Meta's lawyer Mark Hansen points to Wu's presence at trial yesterday, his friendship with FTC expert Hemphill, and their “roadshow” together in 2019. We're now looking at a pitch deck they prepared for enforcers. Tim Wu / @superwuster : Went to the Facebook antitrust trial today for the FTC's main economic witness, Scott Hemphill. His presentation supporting the existence of a distinct “friends and family” social media market was extremely strong (1/3) Tim Wu / @superwuster : Basically — Hemphill argued that only Instagram, Facebook and Snap (among large social media) have family and friends sharing as their core usage. In contrast, YouTube & TikTok are entertainment, Reddit interests, LinkedIn business Jason Kint / @jason_kint : “He is a small little creature with a shriveled soul to do this to someone who was a key part of making him so rich & powerful.” is the MZ quote from Swisher that they also tried to leverage/discredit to impeach an expert witness who just cited her for something else.
Context & Ripple Effects
The courtroom exchange sits within an antitrust case in which the FTC has portrayed Meta’s past acquisitions as a “buy-or-bury” approach to social-networking competition. Meta’s lawyer used public commentary about Kara Swisher and Om Malik to challenge FTC expert Scott Hemphill rather than address that broader theory directly.
That makes the episode relevant less as a standalone media dispute than as a window into how the parties are contesting the credibility of the people and interpretations supporting the case.
First-order effects
- The remarks shift attention from Hemphill’s testimony to Meta’s courtroom conduct, drawing public criticism from Swisher, Malik’s defenders, and other tech-media figures.
- Meta’s legal team has made journalists’ prior commentary part of its impeachment strategy, potentially complicating its effort to keep the focus on the FTC expert’s analysis.
Second-order effects
- The dispute gives the FTC and its supporters an opening to argue that Meta is attacking peripheral voices rather than rebutting the competitive evidence underlying the case.
- For reporters and analysts whose work is cited in major technology litigation, public posts and professional histories become more likely to be scrutinized by opposing counsel.
Third-order effects
- If this tactic becomes more common, high-profile tech cases may increasingly combine economic testimony with adversarial battles over the credibility of the media ecosystem surrounding it.
- The durable issue is whether litigants can effectively weaken expert evidence through associated public commentary without making that tactic a reputational liability of its own.
The trend: Major technology antitrust fights are broadening from disputes over market evidence into contests over the public credibility of experts, journalists, and the narratives around them.