The FTC was so “adamant” with EY, conveying that “this is absolutely what you will do and this is going to occur, and you’ll produce a report at the end of the day” that would be negative about Twitter, that senior EY leaders feared that, if EY resigned as the independent assessor, “the FTC would take exception to [EY’s] withdrawal and create ‘other’ challenges for EY over time.”
A private litigant who engaged in such conduct might well be facing charges of witness tampering. As the Plaintiff in this civil enforcement action, the FTC should not receive preferential treatment. There simply is no way to square the striking record of bias recounted above, along with other evidence described in this motion, with any semblance of the impartiality, due process, or equitable conduct that the law requires from administrative agencies like the FTC when they act pursuant to court-authorized and -supervised consent orders.
This Court should intervene to stop the FTC’s ongoing improper conduct.
The alarming recent developments in this case occur against the backdrop of a consent order between the FTC and Twitter (now X Corp) entered more than a decade ago to resolve allegations that Twitter had not adequately safeguarded user information.