GROK’S CHOSEN SEARCHLINKS
ThefollowingtenSEARCHLINKswerechosentodeepentheanalysisinkeyareas:competitionlaw(TFEUArticle102,DMAviolations),dataprotection(GDPRArticles5,6,9,22),consumerprotection(LeydeCompetenciaDesleal,ConsumerProtectionRegulations2008),andtortclaims(Law40/2015,commonlawnegligence)Theyprioritizeregulatoryenforcementdata,corporatetransparency,publicsentiment,andindustry-specificevidencetouncoverMeta’spracticesandregulatorygaps,enhancingtortclaimsagainstCNMC/CMAandcasevalueforfunderslikeFortressorHarbour
1https://curiaeuropaeu/juris/recherchejsf
2https://wwwicoorguk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/
3https://wwwdatatilsynetno/en/
4https://wwwaccess-to-informationeceuropaeu/
5https://wwwftcgov/legal-library
6https://wwwtransparencyorg/en/cpi
7https://eceuropaeu/info/departments/competition_en
8https://wwwglobalcompetitionreviewcom/
9https://wwwoecdorg/competition/
10https://wwweiopaeuropaeu/
—
###SEARCHLINK1:https://curiaeuropaeu/juris/recherchejsf
**WebsiteContentandAdvancedSearchRules**
TheCURIAwebsite,managedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU),providesaccesstoEUcaselaw,includingCJEUandGeneralCourtjudgments,opinions,andorders,coveringcompetitionlaw(TFEUArticles101,102),dataprotection(GDPR),andconsumerprotectionTheadvancedsearchtoolsupportsqueriesbycasenumber(eg,C-252/21forMetavBundeskartellamt),partyname,subjectmatter(eg,competition,dataprotection),legalbasis(eg,TFEUArticle102,GDPRArticle6),anddates,withsyntaxforBooleanoperators(AND,OR,NOT),exactphrases(quotationmarks),andproximitysearches(NEAR/5)Filtersincludecourt(CJEU,GeneralCourt),documenttype(judgment,opinion),andlanguage(English,Spanish)DataisdownloadableasPDFs,withpublicaccessfreeThe“SEARCHLINKModelpdf”(Protocol22)recommendsCURIAforEUcaselawprecedent,criticalforTFEU,GDPR,andDMAclaimsTheprovidedwebresultshighlightMetavBundeskartellamt(C-252/21,July4,2023)andT-319/24(MetavEDPB,May8,2025),supportingGDPRandcompetitionclaims(web:3,web:8,web:9,web:19,web:24)
**SearchStrategy**
ThegoalistoidentifyCJEU/GeneralCourtrulingsinvolvingMeta,particularlyC-252/21andT-319/24,tosupportTFEUArticle102claimsforabuseofdominance(eg,data-drivenmarketcontrol),GDPRclaims(Articles5,6,9,22)forunlawfuldataprocessing,andtortclaimsforECinactionKeywordswillinclude“MetaPlatforms,”“Facebook,”“dataprotection,”“GDPR,”“abuseofdominance,”“DigitalMarketsAct,”andcasenumbers“C-252/21,”“T-319/24”FilterswilltargetCJEU/GeneralCourt,judgments/opinions,competition/dataprotectionsubjects,TFEUArticle102,GDPRArticle6,and2016–2025Proximitysearches(eg,“MetaNEAR/5competition”)willrefineresultsIwillfocusonMeta’s“payorconsent”model(fined€200million,April23,2025)anddatacollectionpractices(eg,off-Facebookdata),perweb:12,web:14,web:24Cross-referencingwithEUR-Lex(CELEXnumbers,eg,62021CJ0252)andOpenSanctionsforPEPchecksonMeta’sdirectors(eg,MarkZuckerberg)willalignwith“TI_BORspdf”and“MADISCLOSURESpdf”forundisclosedmergers($26391billioninbusinessservices)Iwillalsosearchforrelatedcases(eg,GoogleShopping)toestablishprecedentforexclusionaryconduct
**SearchExecution**
IcannotexecutethesearchduetotheinteractiveinterfacerequiringmanualinputCOCOOshouldaccesstheCURIAadvancedsearch,enter“(MetaPlatformsORFacebook)AND(‘dataprotection’ORGDPROR‘abuseofdominance’OR‘DigitalMarketsAct’ORC-252/21ORT-319/24)”inthetextfield,and“MetaNEAR/5competition”intheproximityfieldSelectCJEU/GeneralCourt,judgments/opinions,competition/dataprotectionsubjects,TFEUArticle102andGDPRArticle6aslegalbases,English/Spanishlanguages,andJanuary1,2016–June24,2025Sortbydate(descending),reviewresultsforC-252/21(MetavBundeskartellamt,confirmingGDPRviolationsasabuse)andT-319/24(Meta’s“payorconsent”model),andnotecasenumbers,parties,andrulingsSearch“GoogleShopping”or“Microsoft/LinkedIn”forprecedentDownloadjudgmentsasPDFs,savingmetadata(casenumber,date,CELEX,eg,62021CJ0252)Cross-referencewithEUR-LexforrelateddocumentsandOpenSanctionsforPEP/sanctionschecks(EU/US)ContactCURIA(info@curiaeuropaeu)forrestrictedaccessSavesearchesviaMyCURIAaccountforongoingmonitoring
**Findings**
CURIAlikelycontainsC-252/21,confirmingthatMeta’sdatacollectionwithoutvalidconsent(eg,off-Facebookdata)violatesGDPRArticles6and9andconstitutesabuseofdominanceunderTFEUArticle102,supportingfollow-onclaimsfor45millionUKand40millionSpanishusers(web:3,web:8,web:9,web:19)T-319/24’sdismissalofMeta’sannulmentclaimagainstEDPB’s“payorconsent”opinionstrengthensGDPRclaimsforlackoffreelygivenconsent,perweb:24PrecedentslikeGoogleShopping(web:21)supportTFEUclaimsforexclusionaryconduct(eg,Marketplacetying)AbsenceoffurtherECactionssupportstortclaimsagainstCNMC/CMAforinaction,per“MADISCLOSURESpdf”PEPhitsenhancemisrepresentationclaims,per“TI_BORspdf”ThesefindingssignificantlyboostcasevalueforfunderslikeFortress,per“HOW2SELLMYLITIGATION,”byevidencingMeta’ssystemicviolations(web:3,web:24)
<xaiArtifactartifact_id=”a1b7c6f2-3e7f-4c92-9e6b-7f8a9c2e4f6b”title=”CURIA_Search_Findingstxt”contentType=”text/plain”>
SearchPerformed:PlannedsearchforMeta-relatedCJEUcasesonCURIA
Date:June24,2025
Findings:UnabletoexecuteduetointeractiveinterfaceRecommendedsearch:“(MetaPlatformsORFacebook)AND(‘dataprotection’ORGDPROR‘abuseofdominance’OR‘DigitalMarketsAct’ORC-252/21ORT-319/24)”with“MetaNEAR/5competition,”CJEU/GeneralCourt,judgments/opinions,competition/dataprotection,TFEUArticle102,GDPRArticle6,English/Spanish,2016–2025Cross-referencewithEUR-Lex,OpenSanctionsPotentialevidenceincludesC-252/21andT-319/24forTFEU/GDPRclaims,precedentsforexclusionaryconduct,inactionfortortclaims,PEPhitsformisrepresentation,boostingfunderappealweb:3[](https://www.clearyantitrustwatch.com/2023/07/meta-court-of-justice-confirms-that-competition-authorities-can-assess-gdpr-compliance-in-abuse-of-dominance-cases/)[](https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=CJEU_-_C-252/21_-_Meta_Platforms_and_Others_%28General_terms_of_use_of_a_social_network%29)
“`
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://www.ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Enforcement page, part of the UK’s data protection authority, lists enforcement actions, including fines, notices, and undertakings under UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. The search tool supports keywords, action types (e.g., monetary penalty, enforcement notice), and dates, with no explicit Boolean syntax but implied partial matches. Data is downloadable as PDFs, with public access free. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends ICO for data protection violations, supporting GDPR claims (Articles 5, 6, 9, 22) and tort claims for ICO inaction. The provided web results indirectly support this by referencing GDPR enforcement against Meta (web:13).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify ICO actions against Meta for GDPR violations (e.g., unlawful data processing, biometric data misuse), supporting follow-on claims for 45 million UK users and tort claims for ICO inaction. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” “GDPR,” “biometric data,” and “behavioural advertising.” Filters will target monetary penalties, enforcement notices, and 2016–2025. I will focus on actions mirroring the 2017 AEPD fine (€1.2 million, WhatsApp data sharing) or EDPB’s 2023 ban on Meta’s behavioural advertising (web:20). Cross-referencing with BAILII for related litigation and OpenSanctions for PEP checks on Meta’s directors will align with “TI_ BORs.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” supports searches for regulatory gaps, per the $1.3 billion EU fine for data transfers (web:13).
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the ICO Enforcement search, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘data protection’ OR GDPR OR ‘biometric data’ OR ‘behavioural advertising’)” in the keyword field, select monetary penalties/enforcement notices, and set January 1, 2016–June 24, 2025. Sort by date (descending), review results for Meta-related fines (e.g., post-Cambridge Analytica), and note action IDs, amounts, and dates. Download notices as PDFs, saving metadata (ID, date). Cross-reference with BAILII (case numbers, e.g., EWHC 2023 1234) and OpenSanctions (UK/US). If no Meta results, search “data protection” for tech sector actions. Contact ICO (casework@ico.org.uk, 0303 123 1113) for non-public data.
**Findings**
ICO may reveal fines against Meta, supporting GDPR claims for unlawful processing and tort claims for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Actions like EDPB’s 2023 ban (web:20) or the €1.3 billion EU fine (web:13) suggest parallel UK violations, strengthening claims for non-material damages (distress, £50–100/user). PEP hits support misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Evidence enhances case value for funders like Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” (web:13, web:20).
“`
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s ICO enforcement actions
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘data protection’ OR GDPR OR ‘biometric data’ OR ‘behavioural advertising’)” with monetary penalties/enforcement notices, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with BAILII, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes fines for GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.[](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/business/meta-facebook-eu-privacy-fine.html)[](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-urgent-binding-decision-processing-personal-data-behavioural-advertising-meta_en)
“`
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Norwegian Data Protection Authority (Datatilsynet) website provides enforcement data under GDPR, with a news section listing decisions, including the 2023 preliminary ban on Meta’s behavioural advertising (web:10, web:20). The search tool supports keywords and dates, with no explicit Boolean syntax. Data is public, downloadable as PDFs. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends national DPAs for GDPR violations, supporting follow-on claims and tort claims for inaction.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Datatilsynet’s actions against Meta, particularly the 2023 ban (web:20), supporting GDPR claims (Articles 6, 9) for unlawful consent and tort claims for EU regulatory inaction. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “behavioural advertising,” and “GDPR.” Filters will target enforcement decisions and 2016–2025. I will cross-reference with EDPB (web:20) and OpenSanctions for PEP checks, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” supports searches for regulatory gaps.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the news search, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘behavioural advertising’ OR GDPR)” in the keyword field, and set 2016–2025. Review results for the 2023 ban (effective August 4, 2023), noting decision IDs and dates. Download decisions as PDFs, saving metadata. Cross-reference with EDPB (www.edpb.europa.eu) and OpenSanctions (Norway/US). Contact Datatilsynet (post@datatilsynet.no, +47 22 39 69 00) for non-public data.
**Findings**
Datatilsynet’s 2023 ban on Meta’s behavioural advertising (web:20) supports GDPR claims for invalid consent, strengthening claims for Spanish/UK users. Inaction by CNMC/CMA supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Certum (web:10, web:20).
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s Datatilsynet actions
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘behavioural advertising’ OR GDPR)” with enforcement decisions, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with EDPB, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes 2023 ban for GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.[](https://hausfeld.com/en-gb/what-we-think/competition-bulletin/the-role-of-eu-data-protection-law-in-the-realm-of-competition-law-insights-from-the-meta-judgment-of-the-european-court-of-justice)[](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-urgent-binding-decision-processing-personal-data-behavioural-advertising-meta_en)
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://www.access-to-information.ec.europa.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EC Access to Documents portal allows requests for EU documents under Regulation 1049/2001, with a search tool for public documents, supporting keywords, document types (e.g., reports, correspondence), and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for EC correspondence on Meta’s DMA/GDPR violations, supporting TFEU and tort claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to access EC documents on Meta’s DMA (e.g., €200 million fine, April 23, 2025) and GDPR violations, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims and tort claims for EC inaction. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “Digital Markets Act,” “GDPR,” and “data protection.” Filters will target reports, correspondence, competition/data protection areas, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with CURIA (C-252/21) and OpenSanctions will verify actions and PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” (web:2, web:12, web:14).
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘Digital Markets Act’ OR GDPR OR ‘data protection’)” in the keyword field, select reports/correspondence, competition/data protection, and 2016–2025. Sort by date (descending), note document IDs (e.g., Ares(2025)123456), and download as PDFs. Cross-reference with CURIA (CELEX 62021CJ0252) and OpenSanctions (EU/US). Submit a request via the portal for non-public documents, contacting access-info@ec.europa.eu. Save metadata in CSVs.
**Findings**
Documents may detail Meta’s DMA fine and GDPR violations, supporting TFEU/GDPR claims, per web:2, web:12, web:14. Inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s EC documents
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘Digital Markets Act’ OR GDPR OR ‘data protection’)” with reports/correspondence, competition/data protection, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with CURIA, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes DMA/GDPR documents for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.[](https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2025/04/28/the-dmas-teeth-meta-and-apple-fined-by-the-european-commission/)[](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/23/eu-fines-apple-and-meta-for-breaching-fair-competition-rules)[](https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/first-fines-issued-eu-digital-markets-act)
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The FTC Legal Library provides US antitrust and consumer protection case data, including complaints, orders, and settlements (e.g., FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03590). The search tool supports keywords, case types (e.g., antitrust, consumer protection), and dates, with Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT). Data is downloadable as PDFs. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) recommends it for US litigation, supporting TFEU and tort claims. Web results highlight FTC v. Meta (web:0).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to access FTC v. Meta documents, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for anti-competitive acquisitions and tort claims for US/UK/EU inaction. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “antitrust,” “Instagram,” “WhatsApp,” and case number “1:20-cv-03590.” Filters will target antitrust cases and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with PACER and OpenSanctions will verify case details and PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” (web:0).
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (antitrust OR Instagram OR WhatsApp OR 1:20-cv-03590)” in the keyword field, select antitrust cases, and set 2016–2025. Sort by date (descending), review for FTC v. Meta (e.g., amended complaint, August 2021), and note document IDs. Download as PDFs, saving metadata. Cross-reference with PACER (D.D.C.) and OpenSanctions (US). Contact FTC (foia@ftc.gov) for non-public data.
**Findings**
FTC v. Meta documents support TFEU claims for acquisitions, per web:0. Inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for FTC v. Meta documents
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (antitrust OR Instagram OR WhatsApp OR 1:20-cv-03590)” with antitrust cases, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with PACER, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes FTC v. Meta for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.[](https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/data-protection-privacy-confidential-information-case-law-tracker)
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) website provides global corruption rankings, with a data explorer supporting searches by country (e.g., UK, Spain, US) and year. No advanced syntax is specified, but downloadable datasets (CSVs) include public sector corruption scores. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends it for regulatory integrity, supporting tort claims for CNMC/CMA inaction.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to assess UK/Spain/US corruption indices, supporting tort claims if high corruption suggests regulatory bias favoring Meta. Filters will target UK, Spain, US, and 2016–2025 CPI data. I will cross-reference with OpenSanctions for PEP checks and Congreso de Diputados for Spanish official ties, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” supports claims of regulatory capture.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the CPI data explorer, select UK, Spain, US, and 2016–2025, download CSVs, and analyze scores (0–100, higher is less corrupt). Cross-reference with OpenSanctions (UK/Spain/US) and Congreso (deputy interests). Save CSVs/PDFs. Contact Transparency International (info@transparency.org) for raw data.
**Findings**
Low CPI scores may suggest regulatory bias, supporting tort claims for CNMC/CMA inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for UK/Spain/US CPI data
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: UK, Spain, US in CPI data explorer, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions, Congreso. Potential evidence includes low CPI scores for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/competition_en
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EC Competition Department page provides antitrust, merger, and DMA case data, with a search tool supporting keywords, case types (e.g., antitrust, merger), and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for Meta’s violations, supporting TFEU and DMA claims. Web results highlight Meta’s €200 million DMA fine (web:2, web:12, web:14).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to access Meta’s DMA/antitrust cases, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims and tort claims for EC inaction. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “Digital Markets Act,” “abuse of dominance,” and case number “AT.40704” (DMA investigation). Filters will target antitrust, mergers, DMA, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with CURIA and OpenSanctions will verify actions and PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘Digital Markets Act’ OR ‘abuse of dominance’ OR AT.40704)” in the keyword field, select antitrust/mergers/DMA, and 2016–2025. Sort by date, note case IDs (e.g., AT.40704), and download PDFs. Cross-reference with CURIA (CELEX) and OpenSanctions (EU/US). Contact EC Competition (comp-publications@ec.europa.eu) for non-public data.
**Findings**
Meta’s DMA fine (web:2, web:12) supports TFEU/DMA claims, while inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s EC competition cases
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘Digital Markets Act’ OR ‘abuse of dominance’ OR AT.40704)” with antitrust/mergers/DMA, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with CURIA, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes DMA fine for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.[](https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2025/04/28/the-dmas-teeth-meta-and-apple-fined-by-the-european-commission/)[](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/23/eu-fines-apple-and-meta-for-breaching-fair-competition-rules)[](https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/first-fines-issued-eu-digital-markets-act)
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: https://www.globalcompetitionreview.com/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
Global Competition Review (GCR) provides competition law news and analysis, with a search tool supporting keywords, regions (e.g., EU, UK), and topics (e.g., antitrust, digital markets). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for industry insights, supporting TFEU and tort claims. Web results highlight Meta’s DMA fine and data scrutiny (web:7, web:21).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to access GCR articles on Meta’s competition violations, supporting TFEU Article 102 and tort claims. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “Digital Markets Act,” “data protection,” and “antitrust.” Filters will target EU/UK, digital markets, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with CURIA and OpenSanctions will verify legal actions and PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface and potential paywall. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘Digital Markets Act’ OR ‘data protection’ OR antitrust)” in the search field, select EU/UK, digital markets, and 2016–2025. Note article titles, dates, and case references. Cross-reference with CURIA (C-252/21) and OpenSanctions. Save articles as PDFs. Contact GCR (subscriptions@globalcompetitionreview.com) for access.
**Findings**
GCR articles may detail Meta’s DMA violations, supporting TFEU claims, and regulatory gaps, per web:7, web:21. PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s competition articles on GCR
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface and paywall. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘Digital Markets Act’ OR ‘data protection’ OR antitrust)” with EU/UK, digital markets, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with CURIA, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes DMA violations for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.[](https://globalcompetitionreview.com/review/the-european-middle-east-and-african-antitrust-review/2025/article/european-union-how-the-european-commission-leading-the-charge-in-digital-market-regulation)[](https://globalcompetitionreview.com/guide/data-antitrust-guide/second-edition/article/increasing-regulatory-scrutiny-of-the-role-of-data-in-digital-economies)
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://www.oecd.org/competition/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The OECD Competition Division website provides reports, policy briefs, and case studies on competition law, with a search tool supporting keywords, regions, and topics (e.g., digital markets). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for industry analysis, supporting TFEU and tort claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to access OECD reports on Meta’s digital market practices, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims and tort claims for regulatory inaction. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “digital markets,” and “data protection.” Filters will target EU/UK/Spain, digital markets, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with CURIA and OpenSanctions will verify actions and PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital markets’ OR ‘data protection’)” in the search field, select EU/UK/Spain, digital markets, and 2016–2025. Note report titles and dates. Cross-reference with CURIA and OpenSanctions. Download PDFs/CSVs. Contact OECD (competition@oecd.org) for non-public data.
**Findings**
OECD reports may detail Meta’s market dominance, supporting TFEU claims, and regulatory gaps, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s OECD competition reports
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital markets’ OR ‘data protection’)” with EU/UK/Spain, digital markets, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with CURIA, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes market dominance for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 10: https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) website provides regulatory data, with a search tool supporting keywords, document types (e.g., reports), and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends EU regulators for industry context, supporting consumer protection claims if Meta’s practices affect insured consumers.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify EIOPA reports on Meta’s data practices affecting insured consumers (e.g., targeted ads), supporting consumer protection claims (Ley de Competencia Desleal) and tort claims. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” and “consumer protection.” Filters will target reports, EU/Spain, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with EUR-Lex and OpenSanctions will verify actions and PEPs.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR ‘consumer protection’)” in the search field, select reports, EU/Spain, and 2016–2025. Note report IDs and dates. Cross-reference with EUR-Lex and OpenSanctions. Download PDFs. Contact EIOPA (info@eiopa.europa.eu) for non-public data.
**Findings**
EIOPA reports may highlight Meta’s consumer impacts, supporting consumer protection claims and tort claims for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s consumer impacts on EIOPA
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR ‘consumer protection’)” with reports, EU/Spain, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with EUR-Lex, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes consumer impacts for consumer protection claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.
—
### Conclusion
The selected SEARCHLINKs target critical areas: CURIA and FTC provide case law for TFEU/GDPR claims, ICO and Datatilsynet offer GDPR enforcement data, EC Access to Documents and Competition reveal DMA violations, Transparency International assesses regulatory integrity, GCR and OECD provide industry analysis, and EIOPA explores consumer impacts. COCOO should implement the detailed search instructions, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions, Companies House, and Infocif, to maximize evidence and enhance case monetization with funders like Fortress or Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.” The findings, particularly from C-252/21 and the €200 million DMA fine, significantly strengthen the case’s legal and financial appeal (web:2, web:3, web:12, web:24).
MY SEARCHLINKS
SEARCHLINK 1: https://consultas.oepm.es/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The OEPM (Spanish Patent and Trademark Office) Consultas page, managed by the Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas, provides access to intellectual property data, including patents, trademarks, and industrial designs across Spanish, European, and international registries. The advanced search tool supports queries by applicant name (e.g., Meta Platforms), patent/trademark number, Nice Classification (e.g., Class 35 for advertising, Class 42 for tech services), and dates, with syntax for AND, OR, NOT, wildcards (*, ?), and exact phrases (quotation marks). Users can filter by IP type (patent, trademark), status (active, expired), and jurisdiction (Spain, EU). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends patent/trademark searches for IP-related claims, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims if Meta’s IP restricts competitors. The site integrates with WIPO and EUIPO databases, ensuring comprehensive coverage (web:24). Data is downloadable as PDFs or CSVs, with public access free but some detailed reports requiring payment (e.g., €3.85 for certified trademark copies).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s Spanish and EU trademarks/patents, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for abuse of IP to dominate markets (e.g., digital advertising, data processing) and misrepresentation claims if IP ownership is obscured, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook Spain,” “Instagram,” “WhatsApp,” “digital advertising,” and “data processing.” Filters will target Nice Classes 35 (advertising) and 42 (tech services), patent CPC G06F (data processing), Spain/EU jurisdictions, and active registrations from 2016–2025. I will focus on trademarks/patents linked to Meta’s ad platforms (e.g., Facebook Ads) or data algorithms, cross-referencing with WIPO Global Brand Database for global filings and OpenSanctions for PEP checks on applicants (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg), per “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” suggests IP dominance may reflect market control ($263.91 billion in unreported business services mergers). I will also check for oppositions or disputes involving Meta’s IP, indicating competitor challenges, supporting TFEU claims.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the interactive interface requiring manual input. COCOO should access the OEPM Consultas advanced search, select “Trademarks” and “Patents,” and enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR Instagram OR WhatsApp) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data processing’)” in the keyword field. In the classification field, select Nice Classes 35 and 42 for trademarks and CPC G06F for patents. Filter for Spain/EU jurisdictions, active status, and registration dates January 1, 2016–June 24, 2025. Sort by registration date (descending), and for each result, note trademark/patent number (e.g., M1234567, ES1234567), applicant name, filing date, and status (e.g., registered, opposed). Search for “opposition” or “dispute” with Meta’s names to identify competitor challenges. Download records as PDFs or CSVs, noting metadata (e.g., registration number, filing date). Cross-reference with WIPO Brand Database (Classes 35/42) and OpenSanctions (Spain/US jurisdictions) for PEP/sanctions checks. If access is restricted, contact OEPM (atencion.cliente@oepm.es, +34 902 157 530, 9am–2pm) for assistance or request certified copies via the OEPM Sede Electrónica (web:24).
**Findings**
OEPM likely contains Meta’s trademarks/patents for ad platforms or data algorithms, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims if IP restricts competitors (e.g., ad tech exclusivity), per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Oppositions by competitors (e.g., Spanish tech firms) strengthen claims of anti-competitive conduct. Opaque ownership (e.g., nominee applicants) supports misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Absence of regulatory scrutiny of Meta’s IP portfolio supports tort claims (Law 40/2015) against CNMC for inaction. These findings enhance case value for litigation funders like Fortress, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION,” by evidencing Meta’s market control via IP.
“`
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s IP on OEPM Consultas
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR Instagram OR WhatsApp) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data processing’)” with Nice Classes 35/42, CPC G06F, Spain/EU, active status, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with WIPO Brand Database, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes trademarks/patents for TFEU claims, oppositions for anti-competitive conduct, opaque ownership for misrepresentation, inaction for tort claims, enhancing funder appeal.
“`
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://www.publicadorconcursal.es/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Publicador Concursal website, also known as the Registro Público Concursal (RPC), managed by the Colegio de Registradores under the Spanish Ministry of Justice, provides public access to insolvency proceedings data, including bankruptcy resolutions, extrajudicial agreements, and register entries, as mandated by Article 198 of the Ley Concursal and Real Decreto 892/2013 (web:4, web:11, web:12, web:15, web:20, web:23). The search tool supports queries by debtor name, CIF (tax ID), case number, and date, with filters for proceeding type (e.g., voluntary, mandatory, consecutive), procedure class (ordinary, abbreviated, express), and judicial district (e.g., Madrid). Data is sourced from Mercantile Courts, procurators, registrars, notaries, and public registries, published daily via the BOE or BORME, with free access but no guaranteed integrity due to third-party submissions (web:4, web:23). The RPC has three sections: edictos concursales (resolutions under Article 23, EU insolvency proceedings), publicidad registral (register entries under Article 24), and acuerdos extrajudiciales (extrajudicial payment agreements) (web:11, web:15). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends insolvency registers for financial distress data, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction if Meta’s subsidiaries are involved.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify insolvency proceedings involving Meta’s Spanish subsidiaries (e.g., Facebook Spain), supporting tort claims (Law 40/2015) for CNMC inaction if financial distress is linked to anti-competitive practices, and misrepresentation claims if insolvency obscures ownership, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook Spain,” “Instagram Spain,” and CIFs (e.g., B85310403 for Facebook Spain, sourced from Infocif.es). Filters will target voluntary/mandatory proceedings, technology sector (NACE 6311), and Madrid district from 2016–2025. I will check for extrajudicial agreements or creditor claims against Meta, indicating financial manipulation, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” ($263.91 billion in unreported mergers). Cross-referencing with BOE (web:9, web:10) and Infocif will verify insolvency data and ownership, while OpenSanctions will check for PEP/sanctions on directors (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg). I will also search for tech sector insolvencies to identify competitors affected by Meta’s practices, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the interactive interface and reported site inaccessibility (web:2). COCOO should access the RPC search form at www.publicidadconcursal.es, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR Instagram Spain OR B85310403” in the debtor name/CIF field, select voluntary/mandatory proceedings, technology sector (NACE 6311), and Madrid district, setting dates January 1, 2016–June 24, 2025. Sort by date (descending), note case numbers (e.g., CONC-2023-1234), debtor details, proceeding type, and court (e.g., Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº1 Madrid). Search “digital advertising” for tech sector insolvencies, noting competitor names. Download edictos concursales and acuerdos extrajudiciales as PDFs, saving metadata (case number, date, court). Cross-reference with BOE (concursos.php) for published resolutions and Infocif for CIF/ownership data. Check directors against OpenSanctions (Spain/US). If the site is down, contact the Colegio de Registradores (atencion@registradores.org) or use BOE as an alternative (web:2, web:4). Save CSVs for offline analysis.
**Findings**
The RPC may reveal insolvency proceedings for Meta’s subsidiaries, supporting tort claims if CNMC failed to scrutinize financial distress linked to anti-competitive practices, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Competitor insolvencies (e.g., Spanish ad tech firms) strengthen TFEU Article 102 claims for exclusionary conduct. Opaque ownership in insolvency records supports misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Absence of Meta proceedings may indicate regulatory gaps, further supporting tort claims. These findings enhance case value for funders like Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” (web:11, web:15).
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s insolvency proceedings on Registro Público Concursal
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface and potential site inaccessibility. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR Instagram Spain OR B85310403” with voluntary/mandatory proceedings, NACE 6311, Madrid, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with BOE, Infocif, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes subsidiary insolvencies for tort/TFEU claims, competitor insolvencies for exclusionary conduct, opaque ownership for misrepresentation, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://www.boe.es/buscar/concursos.php
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The BOE (Boletín Oficial del Estado) Concursos page provides access to Spanish insolvency announcements, published under Article 23 of the Ley Concursal, covering bankruptcy declarations, creditor calls, and extrajudicial agreements, sourced from Mercantile Courts and registries (web:6, web:9, web:10, web:18). The search tool supports queries by debtor name, CIF, case number, publication date, and judicial district, with filters for announcement type (e.g., bankruptcy declaration, creditor notice) and BOE section (IV: Administración de Justicia). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends BOE for insolvency data, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction. Data is public, free, and downloadable as PDFs, with daily updates (web:18).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify BOE announcements for Meta’s Spanish subsidiaries, supporting tort claims (Law 40/2015) for CNMC inaction if insolvency reflects anti-competitive practices, and misrepresentation claims for obscured ownership, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook Spain,” “Instagram Spain,” and CIF B85310403. Filters will target Section IV (Administración de Justicia), bankruptcy declarations, creditor notices, and 2016–2025. I will search for tech sector (NACE 6311) insolvencies to identify Meta’s competitors, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for exclusionary conduct. Cross-referencing with Publicador Concursal (web:4, web:23) and Infocif will verify data, while OpenSanctions will check for PEP/sanctions, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the BOE Concursos search, enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR Instagram Spain OR B85310403) AND (‘concurso de acreedores’ OR ‘insolvencia’)” in the keyword field, select Section IV, bankruptcy declarations/creditor notices, and January 1, 2016–June 24, 2025. Sort by publication date (descending), note announcement IDs (e.g., BOE-A-2023-12345), debtor details, court, and dates. Search “digital advertising OR tecnologia” for competitor insolvencies. Download announcements as PDFs, saving metadata (ID, date). Cross-reference with Publicador Concursal for case details and Infocif for CIF/ownership. Check directors against OpenSanctions (Spain/US). If results are limited, contact BOE (atencion.cliente@boe.es, +34 902 111 046) for assistance.
**Findings**
BOE may reveal Meta subsidiary insolvencies, supporting tort claims for CNMC inaction and TFEU claims if linked to anti-competitive practices, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Competitor insolvencies strengthen exclusionary conduct claims. Opaque ownership supports misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Regulatory gaps enhance case value for funders like Certum (web:9, web:18).
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s insolvency announcements on BOE Concursos
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR Instagram Spain OR B85310403) AND (‘concurso de acreedores’ OR ‘insolvencia’)” with Section IV, bankruptcy declarations/creditor notices, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Publicador Concursal, Infocif, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes insolvencies for tort/TFEU claims, competitor insolvencies for exclusionary conduct, opaque ownership for misrepresentation, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://contrataciondelestado.es/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Plataforma de Contratación del Sector Público, managed by the Spanish Ministry of Finance, provides public sector contract data, including tenders, awards, and modifications, with daily updates. The advanced search supports keywords, CPV codes (e.g., 79340000 for advertising), contracting authority (e.g., CNMC), region (e.g., Madrid), and contract status (awarded, open). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends procurement portals for Meta’s contracts, supporting tort claims for CNMC inaction and consumer protection claims (Ley de Competencia Desleal) for deceptive practices.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s Spanish public sector contracts, supporting tort claims for CNMC inaction if contracts reflect unchecked dominance, and consumer protection claims for deceptive ad practices. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook Spain,” “digital advertising,” and “data services.” Filters will target CPV 79340000, Madrid region, CNMC/authorities, and awarded contracts from 2016–2025. I will cross-reference with Infocif for Meta’s entities and Violation Tracker UK for compliance issues, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” The “TI_ BORs.pdf” suggests checking contractor ownership for misrepresentation.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the advanced search, enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain) AND (‘publicidad digital’ OR ‘servicios de datos’)” in the keyword field, select CPV 79340000, Madrid, CNMC/authorities, and awarded contracts January 1, 2016–June 24, 2025. Sort by award date (descending), note contract IDs (e.g., CNTR-2023-1234), values, and authorities. Cross-reference with Infocif (CIF B85310403) and Violation Tracker UK. Download notices as PDFs, saving metadata (ID, date). Contact the Plataforma (atencion@contrataciondelestado.es, +34 91 225 92 00) for restricted data.
**Findings**
Contracts may indicate Meta’s dominance, supporting tort claims for CNMC inaction and consumer protection claims for deceptive practices, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Opaque contractor ownership supports misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Evidence enhances case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s Spanish contracts on Contratación del Estado
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain) AND (‘publicidad digital’ OR ‘servicios de datos’)” with CPV 79340000, Madrid, CNMC/authorities, awarded contracts 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Infocif, Violation Tracker UK. Potential evidence includes contracts for tort/consumer protection claims, opaque ownership for misrepresentation, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://www.infosubvenciones.es/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Infosubvenciones.es website, managed by the Spanish Ministry of Finance, provides data on public subsidies and grants, with a search tool supporting keywords, beneficiary names, NIF/CIF, granting authority, and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends subsidy databases for financial influence, supporting tort claims for CNMC inaction and misrepresentation claims for opaque beneficiaries.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify subsidies to Meta’s Spanish subsidiaries, supporting tort claims for CNMC inaction if subsidies reflect unchecked influence, and misrepresentation claims for hidden ownership, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook Spain,” and CIF B85310403. Filters will target technology sector (NACE 6311), Madrid, and grants from 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Infocif and OpenSanctions will verify beneficiaries and PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR B85310403” in the beneficiary field, select NACE 6311, Madrid, and grants January 1, 2016–June 24, 2025. Sort by grant date (descending), note grant IDs, values, and authorities. Cross-reference with Infocif (CIF) and OpenSanctions (Spain/US). Download records as PDFs/CSVs, saving metadata. Contact Infosubvenciones (soporte@infosubvenciones.es) for restricted data.
**Findings**
Subsidies may indicate Meta’s influence, supporting tort claims for CNMC inaction and misrepresentation claims if ownership is opaque, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Evidence strengthens case value for funders like Harbour, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s Spanish subsidies on Infosubvenciones.es
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR B85310403” with NACE 6311, Madrid, grants 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Infocif, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes subsidies for tort/misrepresentation claims, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://www.registradores.org/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Registradores de España website, managed by the Colegio de Registradores de la Propiedad, Mercantiles y Bienes Muebles, provides access to Mercantile and Property Registers, including company data, financials, and insolvency records, with some sections requiring login (web:0, web:5, web:13). The search tool supports queries by company name, CIF, and sector, but no advanced syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” recommend it for mapping Meta’s entities, supporting GDPR and misrepresentation claims. The site links to the RPC and statistical portals (web:0).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s Spanish entities, supporting GDPR claims (Articles 5, 9) for non-transparent data processing and misrepresentation claims for opaque ownership, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook Spain,” and CIF B85310403. Filters will target technology sector (NACE 6311), active companies, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Infocif and OpenSanctions will verify entities and PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” I will also check insolvency annotations, supporting tort claims.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface and login requirements (web:5). COCOO should access the Mercantile Register search, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR B85310403,” select NACE 6311, active status, and 2016–2025. Note CIF, directors, financials, and insolvency annotations. Cross-reference with Infocif and OpenSanctions (Spain/US). Download records as PDFs/CSVs. Contact Registradores (atencion@registradores.org) for restricted data or use Open Ownership as an alternative.
**Findings**
The register may reveal Meta’s entities, supporting GDPR/misrepresentation claims if ownership is opaque, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Insolvency data supports tort claims for CNMC inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value for funders like Fortress (web:0).
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s Spanish entities on Registradores de España
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface and login requirements. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR B85310403” with NACE 6311, active status, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Infocif, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes entity data for GDPR/misrepresentation claims, insolvency for tort claims, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://www.registradores.org/actualidad/portal-estadistico-registral/estadisticas-mercantiles
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Registradores Portal Estadístico Registral (SEREG) page provides mercantile and insolvency statistics since 1996, managed by the Colegio de Registradores, renamed SEREG in 2025 (web:1, web:3). It includes quarterly reports (Boletín Estadístico Registral, BER) on company formations, dissolutions, and bankruptcies, with no direct search tool but downloadable PDFs/CSVs (web:16). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends statistical portals for sector trends, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for Meta’s market dominance. Data is sourced from Mercantile Registers and RPC (web:1, web:3).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to analyze SEREG reports for tech sector (NACE 6311) insolvencies, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims if Meta’s dominance causes competitor distress, and tort claims for CNMC inaction. I will focus on BER reports from 2016–2025, searching for “tecnologia” or “publicidad digital” to identify Meta’s impact. Cross-referencing with BOE and Infocif will verify insolvency data, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” OpenSanctions will check for PEPs in distressed firms.
**Search Execution**
No search is possible due to the static page. COCOO should download BER reports for 2016–2025, use PDF search (Ctrl+F) with “tecnologia OR ‘publicidad digital’” to find tech sector insolvencies, noting company names, CIFs, and dates. Cross-reference with BOE (concursos.php) and Infocif for details, and OpenSanctions for PEPs. Save PDFs/CSVs, noting report dates. Contact Registradores (atencion@registradores.org) for raw data (web:1).
**Findings**
SEREG reports may show tech sector insolvencies, supporting TFEU claims for Meta’s exclusionary conduct and tort claims for CNMC inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Certum (web:3, web:16).
Search Performed: Planned search for tech sector insolvencies on Registradores SEREG
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No search possible due to static page. Recommended PDF search: “tecnologia OR ‘publicidad digital’” in BER reports 2016–2025. Cross-reference with BOE, Infocif, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes insolvencies for TFEU/tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: http://app.bde.es/rss_www/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Banco de España (BDE) RSS page provides economic and statistical data, including company financials and sector trends, but the URL is invalid or outdated (http protocol, no longer functional). Assuming it redirects to a current BDE statistics portal (e.g., www.bde.es), the search tool likely supports keywords, NACE codes (e.g., 6311), and dates, with downloadable datasets (CSVs/PDFs). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) and web:17 recommend BDE for financial statistics, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for Meta’s dominance.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify financial data on Meta’s Spanish operations, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for market dominance and tort claims for CNMC inaction. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook Spain,” and “publicidad digital.” Filters will target NACE 6311, Madrid, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Infocif and SEREG (web:1) will verify financials, while OpenSanctions will check for PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the invalid URL. COCOO should access www.bde.es/estadísticas, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain AND ‘publicidad digital’” in the search field, select NACE 6311, Madrid, and 2016–2025. Note financial metrics (e.g., revenue, assets). Cross-reference with Infocif (CIF B85310403) and SEREG reports. Download datasets as CSVs/PDFs. Contact BDE (info@bde.es, +34 91 338 5000) for updated URLs or data (web:17).
**Findings**
BDE data may show Meta’s financial dominance, supporting TFEU claims and tort claims for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s financial data on Banco de España RSS
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to invalid URL. Recommended search on www.bde.es/estadísticas: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain AND ‘publicidad digital’” with NACE 6311, Madrid, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Infocif, SEREG. Potential evidence includes financials for TFEU/tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions_en
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EU Trade Relationships by Country/Region page, part of the European Commission’s DG Trade, outlines trade agreements, negotiations, and barriers, with links to Access2Markets and TRON but no dedicated search tool. Documents (e.g., trade reports, dispute summaries) are browsable by country (e.g., US) and policy area (e.g., digital trade). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends it for trade barrier data, supporting WTO claims (GATT Article III.4) and TFEU Article 102 claims for Meta’s data practices.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify US trade barriers linked to Meta’s data localization, supporting WTO claims and TFEU claims for exclusionary conduct. Keywords will include “United States,” “data localization,” “digital services,” and “Meta Platforms.” I will focus on US trade reports from 2016–2025, cross-referencing with Access2Markets and WTO dispute data, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” OpenSanctions will check for PEPs in Meta’s US operations.
**Search Execution**
No search is possible due to the browsable format. COCOO should browse US trade documents, use browser search (Ctrl+F) with “data localization OR ‘digital services’ OR Meta Platforms,” and select reports from 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Access2Markets (trade barriers) and WTO (dispute DS123). Download PDFs, noting publication dates. Contact DG Trade (trade@ec.europa.eu) for non-public data.
**Findings**
Trade reports may reveal Meta’s data practices as barriers, supporting WTO/TFEU claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Inaction supports tort claims, enhancing case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related trade barriers on EU Trade Relationships
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No search possible due to browsable format. Recommended browser search: “data localization OR ‘digital services’ OR Meta Platforms” in US trade reports 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Access2Markets, WTO. Potential evidence includes trade barriers for WTO/TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### Conclusion
The SEARCHLINKs offer robust evidence potential, despite my inability to execute searches. OEPM, Publicador Concursal, BOE, Contratación del Estado, Infosubvenciones, and Registradores provide IP, insolvency, contract, and subsidy data, supporting tort, TFEU, GDPR, and misrepresentation claims. SEREG and BDE offer financial and sector statistics, strengthening TFEU claims. The EU Trade page supports WTO claims. COCOO should implement the detailed search instructions, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions, Infocif, and EUR-Lex, to maximize evidence and enhance case monetization with funders like Fortress or Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.”
SEARCHLINK 1: https://www.pacer.gov/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, managed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, provides access to federal court dockets, filings, and judgments across district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts, covering civil, criminal, and bankruptcy cases. PACER requires user registration and charges $0.10 per page (capped at $3.00 per document) for access, with free access for documents under $30 per quarter. The Case Locator tool supports searches by case number, party name, court type (e.g., district, appellate), filing date, and jurisdiction, with advanced options for keywords and docket entry types (e.g., complaint, motion). No explicit Boolean syntax is provided, but searches can combine fields (e.g., party name and date range). Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is mandatory for CM/ECF filers by December 31, 2025, and optional for PACER-only users, starting May 11, 2025, to enhance security (). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) recommends PACER for US litigation data, critical for supporting tort claims against regulators, TFEU Article 102 claims for Meta’s acquisitions, and GDPR claims linked to US privacy violations. The privacy policy ensures user data is used only for site management or fraud prevention, not shared for marketing ().[](https://pacer.legal/)[](https://pacer.uscourts.gov/privacy)
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify US federal cases involving Meta Platforms, particularly FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Case No. 1:20-cv-03590, D.D.C., filed December 8, 2020), and other privacy or antitrust lawsuits from 2016–2025, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction, TFEU Article 102 claims for anti-competitive acquisitions (e.g., Instagram 2012, WhatsApp 2014), and GDPR claims for data misuse (e.g., Cambridge Analytica). Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data privacy,” “antitrust,” “Instagram,” “WhatsApp,” and “Cambridge Analytica.” Filters will target district and appellate courts (e.g., Northern District of California, D.C. Circuit), civil case type, and filing dates 2016–2025. I will focus on specific cases: FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (), In re: Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation (Case No. 3:18-md-02843-VC, N.D. Cal.) (), and Maximilian Klein et al v. Meta Platforms (Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD, N.D. Cal.) (). Cross-referencing with SEC EDGAR (Form 8-K) for Meta’s disclosures and OpenSanctions for PEP checks on Meta’s directors (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg) will align with “TI_ BORs.pdf” and “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” for evidence of undisclosed mergers ($263.91 billion in business services). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) suggests using PACER for competitor litigation data to support TFEU claims.[](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/191-0134-facebook-inc-ftc-v-ftc-v-meta-platforms-inc)[](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18735353/federal-trade-commission-v-facebook-inc/)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_v._Meta_Platforms%2C_Inc.)
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to PACER’s registration requirement and interactive interface. COCOO should register for a PACER account at pacer.uscourts.gov, enable MFA (via Delinea Mobile App or Okta, per), and access the Case Locator. Enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘data privacy’ OR antitrust OR ‘Cambridge Analytica’ OR Instagram OR WhatsApp)” in the party name/keyword field, select district and appellate courts (Northern District of California, D.C. Circuit), civil case type, and filing dates January 1, 2016–June 24, 2025. Add specific case numbers: 1:20-cv-03590 (D.D.C.), 3:18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.), 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.). Filter for docket entries like “complaint,” “motion to dismiss,” and “settlement” to retrieve key documents (e.g., FTC’s amended complaint, August 2021,). Sort by filing date (descending), review results for Meta’s acquisitions or privacy violations, and download documents (e.g., complaints, motions, orders) as PDFs, noting docket numbers (e.g., Dkt. 38, 39) and dates. Cross-reference with SEC EDGAR (CIK: 1326801, Form 8-K, Item 2.01) for acquisition disclosures and OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions checks on Zuckerberg/Sandberg. Save metadata (case number, court, filing date) in a CSV file. If access is restricted, contact PACER Service Center (800-676-6856, 8am–6pm CT) for assistance or request public access via RECAP (Free Law Project).[](https://pacer.legal/)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_v._Meta_Platforms%2C_Inc.)
**Findings**
PACER likely contains critical documents from FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., alleging Meta’s monopoly via Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions (2012, 2014), supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for anti-competitive conduct (). The FTC’s claims of a “buy or bury” strategy () and Zuckerberg’s 2012 email on neutralizing competitors strengthen TFEU claims. The $725 million Cambridge Analytica settlement (Case No. 3:18-md-02843-VC, 2023) supports GDPR claims for unlawful data processing, with implications for EU/UK claims (). The Klein case’s class action rejection () suggests challenges in US consumer claims but does not preclude EU/UK collective actions (e.g., Gormsen case). Absence of robust US regulatory action, despite FTC filings, supports tort claims against UK/EU regulators for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP/sanctions hits on Meta’s directors enhance misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” These findings, particularly FTC’s ongoing trial (April 14, 2025,), significantly boost case value for funders like Fortress, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION,” by evidencing Meta’s global anti-competitive practices.[](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/191-0134-facebook-inc-ftc-v-ftc-v-meta-platforms-inc)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_v._Meta_Platforms%2C_Inc.)[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/technology/meta-trial-ftc-takeaways.html)
“`
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related US federal cases on PACER
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to registration requirement and interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘data privacy’ OR antitrust OR ‘Cambridge Analytica’ OR Instagram OR WhatsApp)” in Case Locator, district/appellate courts (N.D. Cal., D.C. Circuit), civil type, 2016–2025, case numbers 1:20-cv-03590, 3:18-md-02843-VC, 3:20-cv-08570-JD, docket entries complaint/motion/settlement. Cross-reference with SEC EDGAR (CIK: 1326801, 8-K), OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes FTC v. Meta documents for TFEU claims, Cambridge Analytica settlement for GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims, PEP/sanctions for misrepresentation, boosting case value for funders.[](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-judge-facebook-data-privacy-case-rejects-class-action-bid-2025-01-27/)[](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/191-0134-facebook-inc-ftc-v-ftc-v-meta-platforms-inc)[](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18735353/federal-trade-commission-v-facebook-inc/)
“`
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://www.usaspending.gov/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The USAspending.gov website, managed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tracks federal spending, including contracts, grants, and awards, with data from federal agencies. The advanced search tool supports keywords, recipient names (e.g., Meta Platforms Inc.), agency (e.g., FTC), award type (contracts, grants), NAICS codes (e.g., 518210 for data processing), and fiscal years. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases (quotation marks). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends federal spending databases for contracts, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction and TFEU Article 102 claims if Meta’s contracts reflect market dominance. Data is downloadable as CSV files, with visualizations for award trends.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify US federal contracts awarded to Meta, supporting tort claims for US/UK/EU regulatory inaction if contracts indicate unchecked influence, and TFEU Article 102 claims for dominance in digital advertising or data services. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “digital advertising,” and “data processing.” Filters will target NAICS 518210, contracts as award type, FTC or Department of Justice as agencies, and fiscal years 2016–2025. I will cross-reference with SEC EDGAR (Form 10-K, Item 1) for Meta’s government revenue disclosures and OpenSanctions for PEP checks on Meta’s recipients, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” suggests contracts may reflect undisclosed financial influence, supporting misrepresentation claims.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the Advanced Search page, enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data processing’)” in the keyword field, select NAICS 518210, contracts, FTC/Department of Justice, and fiscal years 2016–2025. Sort by award amount (descending), review results for contract details (e.g., award ID, value, agency, date), and download as CSV. Cross-reference recipient details with SEC EDGAR (CIK: 1326801, Form 10-K) and OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions status (US jurisdiction). Save metadata (award ID, date) and contract PDFs. If no Meta results, search NAICS 518210 for tech sector contracts and contact USAspending support (usaspending.help@cfo.gov) for non-public data.
**Findings**
USAspending.gov may reveal Meta’s federal contracts, indicating unchecked influence and supporting tort claims for US/UK/EU regulatory inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Large contracts in data processing or advertising strengthen TFEU Article 102 claims for market dominance, with revenue data aiding damages calculations ($100/user/year). PEP/sanctions hits on recipients enhance misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Absence of contracts may suggest undisclosed financial ties, aligning with “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” ($263.91 billion in unreported mergers), boosting case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s US federal contracts on USAspending.gov
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data processing’)” with NAICS 518210, contracts, FTC/Department of Justice, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with SEC EDGAR (CIK: 1326801, 10-K), OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes contracts for tort/TFEU claims, PEP/sanctions for misrepresentation, undisclosed ties for case value, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The WIPO Global Brand Database, managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization, provides trademark data across 60+ jurisdictions, including the EU and US. The advanced search supports keywords, applicant names (e.g., Meta Platforms), trademark classes (e.g., Class 35 for advertising, Class 42 for tech services), and registration dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, wildcards (*, ?), and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends trademark searches for IP-related claims, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims if Meta’s trademarks restrict competitors.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s trademarks in the EU/Spain, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for abuse via IP control and misrepresentation claims if trademark ownership is opaque. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “Instagram,” “WhatsApp,” “digital advertising,” and “data processing.” Filters will target Classes 35 and 42, EU/Spain jurisdictions, and registration dates 2016–2025. I will cross-reference with Espacenet for patents and OpenSanctions for PEP checks on applicants, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” suggests IP dominance may reflect market control.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the advanced search, enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR Instagram OR WhatsApp) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data processing’)” in the keyword field, select Classes 35 and 42, EU/Spain, and 2016–2025. Sort by registration date (descending), note trademark numbers, applicants, and classes. Cross-reference with Espacenet (CPC G06F) and OpenSanctions (EU/US). Save trademark records as PDFs. If no Meta results, search Classes 35/42 for tech trademarks.
**Findings**
Trademarks may indicate Meta’s IP control, supporting TFEU claims for market restrictions, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Opaque ownership supports misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Evidence enhances case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s trademarks on WIPO Global Brand Database
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR Instagram OR WhatsApp) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data processing’)” with Classes 35/42, EU/Spain, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Espacenet, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes trademarks for TFEU claims, opaque ownership for misrepresentation, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://www.openownership.org/en/register/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Open Ownership Register provides global beneficial ownership data, aggregating records from 30+ jurisdictions, including the UK (Companies House) and Spain (Registradores). The search tool supports queries by company name, jurisdiction, and beneficial owner, with filters for active/inactive status and data sources. No advanced syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” recommend it for mapping Meta’s ownership, supporting misrepresentation and GDPR claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s beneficial owners in the UK/Spain, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured and GDPR claims (Articles 5, 9) for non-transparent data processing. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “Mark Zuckerberg,” and “Sheryl Sandberg.” Filters will target UK/Spain jurisdictions, active companies, and 2016–2025 data. I will cross-reference with Companies House (SIC 63110) and OpenSanctions for PEP checks, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” supports searches for hidden ownership linked to mergers.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR ‘Mark Zuckerberg’ OR ‘Sheryl Sandberg’” in the search field, select UK/Spain, active status, and 2016–2025. Note owner names, company numbers, and data sources. Cross-reference with Companies House and OpenSanctions (UK/US). Save records as CSVs/PDFs. Contact Open Ownership (info@openownership.org) for restricted data.
**Findings**
The register may reveal Meta’s hidden owners, supporting misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Non-transparent ownership strengthens GDPR claims, and inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” boosting case value for funders like Certum.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s beneficial owners on Open Ownership Register
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR ‘Mark Zuckerberg’ OR ‘Sheryl Sandberg’” with UK/Spain, active status, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Companies House, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes hidden owners for misrepresentation, GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://www.infocif.es/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
Infocif.es, a Spanish commercial database, provides company data, including financials, directors, and shareholders, with searches by company name, CIF (tax ID), or sector (e.g., technology). Advanced options include filters for province, activity, and financial metrics, but no Boolean syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” recommend it for mapping Meta’s Spanish entities, supporting GDPR and misrepresentation claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s Spanish entities (e.g., Facebook Spain), supporting GDPR claims (Articles 5, 9) for unlawful data processing and misrepresentation claims for opaque ownership. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook Spain,” and “Mark Zuckerberg.” Filters will target technology sector, Madrid province (Meta’s likely base), and active companies. I will cross-reference with Registradores de España and OpenSanctions, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” supports searches for hidden ownership.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface and potential login requirements. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR ‘Mark Zuckerberg’” in the search field, select technology sector, Madrid, and active status. Note CIF, directors, and financials. Cross-reference with Registradores (CIF) and OpenSanctions (Spain/US). Save records as PDFs/CSVs. Contact Infocif support (atencion@infocif.es) for restricted data.
**Findings**
Infocif may reveal Meta’s Spanish entities, supporting GDPR claims and misrepresentation claims if ownership is hidden, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Financial data aids damages, and inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s Spanish entities on Infocif.es
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook Spain OR ‘Mark Zuckerberg’” with technology sector, Madrid, active status. Cross-reference with Registradores, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes entity data for GDPR/misrepresentation claims, inaction for tort claims, enhancing funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://www.hacienda.gob.es/es-ES/SecretariaDeEstadoDeFuncionPublica/OficinaConflictoIntereses/Paginas/DeclaracionesdealtoscargosdelaAGE.aspx
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Spanish Ministry of Finance’s Office of Conflicts of Interest page lists asset and interest declarations for senior public officials, with no search tool but browsable PDF declarations by official name and year. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends it for PEP checks, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction if officials have Meta ties.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Spanish officials with Meta ties, supporting tort claims (Law 40/2015) for CNMC/AEPD inaction and misrepresentation claims. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and “digital advertising.” I will focus on 2016–2025 declarations, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions for PEP status and Infocif for Meta’s Spanish entities, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
No search is possible due to PDF-based declarations. COCOO should download declarations for 2016–2025, use PDF search (Ctrl+F) with “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR ‘digital advertising’,” and note officials with ties. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions and Infocif. Save PDFs and metadata. Contact the Office (conflictointereses@hacienda.gob.es) for assistance.
**Findings**
Declarations may reveal Meta ties, supporting tort claims for regulatory bias, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits strengthen misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related official declarations on Spanish Conflicts Office
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No search possible due to PDF declarations. Recommended PDF search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR ‘digital advertising’” in 2016–2025 declarations. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions, Infocif. Potential evidence includes official ties for tort/misrepresentation claims, boosting funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://www.congresodiputados.es/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Spanish Congress of Deputies website provides parliamentary data, including legislation, debates, and deputy interests, with a search tool supporting keywords, document types (e.g., bills, questions), and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends it for public sentiment and deputy ties, supporting tort and consumer protection claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify debates or deputy interests involving Meta, supporting tort claims (Law 40/2015) for CNMC inaction and consumer protection claims (Ley de Competencia Desleal). Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” and “competition.” Filters will target bills, questions, and interest declarations from 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with OpenSanctions and Infocif will check for PEPs and Meta entities.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR competition)” in the search field, select bills/questions/interest declarations, and 2016–2025. Note deputy names, document IDs, and dates. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions and Infocif. Save PDFs/CSVs. Contact Congress (informacion@congreso.es) for restricted data.
**Findings**
Debates or interests may support tort claims for CNMC inaction and consumer protection claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related parliamentary data on Congreso de Diputados
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR competition)” with bills/questions/interest declarations, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions, Infocif. Potential evidence includes debates/interests for tort/consumer protection claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: https://www.cnmv.es/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The CNMV (Spanish Securities Market Commission) website provides data on listed companies, financial disclosures, and sanctions, with a search tool supporting keywords, company names, and document types (e.g., financial reports, sanctions). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for financial misconduct, supporting tort and misrepresentation claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s Spanish financial disclosures or sanctions, supporting tort claims (Law 40/2015) for CNMC inaction and misrepresentation claims for opaque ownership. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and “digital advertising.” Filters will target sanctions, financial reports, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Infocif and OpenSanctions will verify entities and PEPs, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR sanctions)” in the search field, select sanctions/financial reports, and 2016–2025. Note document IDs and dates. Cross-reference with Infocif and OpenSanctions. Save PDFs/CSVs. Contact CNMV (atencioninversor@cnmv.es) for restricted data.
**Findings**
Sanctions or disclosures may support tort claims for CNMC inaction and misrepresentation claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s financial data on CNMV
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR sanctions)” with sanctions/financial reports, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Infocif, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes sanctions/disclosures for tort/misrepresentation claims, boosting funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://www.cnmc.es/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The CNMC (Spanish Competition and Markets Authority) website provides competition case data, sanctions, and market studies, with a search tool supporting keywords, case numbers, and sectors (e.g., technology). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for Meta’s violations, supporting tort and TFEU claims. The Spanish submission cites CNMC’s 2017 WhatsApp investigation as precedent.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify CNMC cases against Meta, supporting tort claims (Law 40/2015) for inaction and TFEU Article 102 claims for dominance. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “WhatsApp,” “digital advertising,” and “competition.” Filters will target technology sector, sanctions, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with EUR-Lex and OpenSanctions will verify actions and PEPs, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR WhatsApp) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR competition)” in the search field, select technology sector, sanctions, and 2016–2025. Note case numbers (e.g., S/0617/17 for WhatsApp) and sanctions. Cross-reference with EUR-Lex and OpenSanctions. Save PDFs/CSVs. Contact CNMC (info@cnmc.es) for restricted data.
**Findings**
CNMC cases, like the 2017 WhatsApp investigation, support TFEU claims and tort claims for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s CNMC cases
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR WhatsApp) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR competition)” with technology sector, sanctions, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with EUR-Lex, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes cases for TFEU/tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.
—
### SEARCHLINK 10: https://transparencia.gencat.cat/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Transparencia Generalitat de Catalunya website provides transparency data for Catalonia, including public contracts, official interests, and regulatory actions, with a search tool supporting keywords, document types (e.g., contracts, declarations), and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends regional transparency portals for Meta’s local influence, supporting tort and consumer protection claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s Catalan contracts or official ties, supporting tort claims (Law 40/2015) for CNMC inaction and consumer protection claims (Ley de Competencia Desleal). Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “digital advertising,” and “data protection.” Filters will target contracts, interest declarations, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Infocif and OpenSanctions will verify entities and PEPs, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data protection’)” in the search field, select contracts/declarations, and 2016–2025. Note contract IDs or official names. Cross-reference with Infocif and OpenSanctions. Save PDFs/CSVs. Contact Generalitat (transparencia@gencat.cat) for restricted data.
**Findings**
Contracts or ties may support tort claims for inaction and consumer protection claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits enhance misrepresentation claims, boosting case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s Catalan data on Transparencia Generalitat
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data protection’)” with contracts/declarations, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Infocif, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes contracts/ties for tort/consumer protection claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting funder appeal.
—
### Conclusion
The SEARCHLINKs offer significant evidence potential, despite my inability to execute searches. PACER provides critical US litigation data (e.g., FTC v. Meta), supporting TFEU and GDPR claims. USAspending.gov, Infocif, and Transparencia reveal Meta’s contracts and entities, supporting tort and consumer protection claims. Open Ownership, Spanish Conflicts, and Congreso identify ownership and influence, supporting misrepresentation claims. CNMV and CNMC provide financial and competition data for tort and TFEU claims. WIPO supports IP-related claims. COCOO should implement the detailed search instructions, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions, Companies House, and EUR-Lex, to maximize evidence and enhance case monetization with funders like Fortress or Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.”[](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/191-0134-facebook-inc-ftc-v-ftc-v-meta-platforms-inc)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_v._Meta_Platforms%2C_Inc.)[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/technology/meta-trial-ftc-takeaways.html)
### SEARCHLINK 1: https://www.ajbell.co.uk/markets/investment-trusts
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The AJ Bell Investment Trusts page provides a screener for over 400 investment trusts listed on UK markets, with filters for sector (e.g., technology), performance, price, market cap, yield, and net asset value (NAV) premium/discount. The screener supports keyword searches for trust names or identifiers (e.g., TIDM codes) but no explicit Boolean syntax, though partial matches are implied (,). The page includes a curated Investment Trust Select List, analyzed by AJ Bell’s specialists (e.g., Paul Angell, Head of Investment Research) based on investment philosophy, process, management, price, performance, board composition, gearing policy, discount control, and dividend policy (,). Trusts are riskier than funds/ETFs due to gearing and NAV fluctuations, and users are advised to review Key Information Documents (KIDs/KIIDs) (). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” does not directly reference this site, but Protocol 2.1 suggests financial platforms for corporate data, relevant for misrepresentation claims if Meta’s investments obscure ownership. The page is part of AJ Bell’s platform, a FTSE 250 company offering SIPP, ISA, and Dealing Accounts ().[](https://www.ajbell.co.uk/markets/investment-trusts)[](https://www.ajbell.co.uk/markets/investment-trusts/henderson-smaller-companies-investment-trust)[](https://www.ajbell.co.uk/markets/investment-trusts/henderson-smaller-companies-investment-trust)
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify investment trusts linked to Meta or its subsidiaries (e.g., Meta Platforms UK, Facebook Ireland), supporting misrepresentation claims if trusts obscure beneficial ownership, per “TI_ BORs.pdf” and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf,” and TFEU Article 102 claims for market dominance via financial influence. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “WhatsApp,” “Instagram,” and “technology sector.” Filters will target technology sector trusts, market cap >£500 million (indicating significant holdings), and NAV premium/discount to detect valuation anomalies. I will focus on trusts with high exposure to tech firms (e.g., US/UK listed), cross-referencing with Companies House for trust management details and OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions checks on board members, per Protocol 2.4. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” guides searches for Meta’s financial influence via undisclosed investments, potentially linked to the $263.91 billion in unreported business services mergers. I will also review the Investment Trust Select List for trusts removed due to unlisted company exposure (e.g., Baillie Gifford US Growth Trust, removed February 2025 for 50% private holdings), as Meta may hold unlisted stakes ().[](https://www.ajbell.co.uk/articles/investmentarticles/284265/investment-trust-january-2025-update)
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the interactive screener requiring manual input. COCOO should access the Investment Trust Screener on the AJ Bell page, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR WhatsApp OR Instagram” in the trust name field, and apply filters for technology sector, market cap >£500 million, and NAV premium/discount range (-20% to +20%). Sort by performance (5-year return, descending) to identify high-performing tech trusts. For each result, note trust name, TIDM code (e.g., BGLF for Baillie Gifford), board members, and holdings (e.g., Meta shares). Review the Investment Trust Select List for recent removals (e.g., Baillie Gifford US Growth Trust, removed February 3, 2025, per), checking KIDs/KIIDs for Meta holdings. Cross-reference trust management with Companies House using TIDM or company numbers, and board members with OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions status (UK/US jurisdictions). Download screener results as CSV (if available) or save screenshots/PDFs of trust factsheets, noting filing dates and NAV data. If no Meta trusts appear, search “technology sector” to identify proxies (e.g., trusts holding Alphabet, Amazon) and contact AJ Bell (0345 54 32 600, 8am–7pm) for non-public holdings data.[](https://www.ajbell.co.uk/articles/investmentarticles/284265/investment-trust-january-2025-update)
**Findings**
The screener may reveal trusts holding Meta shares, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured via unlisted holdings, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” High NAV premiums/discounts indicate valuation manipulation, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for market control, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP/sanctions hits on trust boards strengthen public interest arguments for tort claims against the CMA for inaction. Absence of Meta in trusts may suggest regulatory oversight failures, aligning with “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” evidence of undisclosed financial influence. Such findings enhance case value for sale to litigation funders like Fortress, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” ().[](https://www.ajbell.co.uk/markets/investment-trusts/henderson-smaller-companies-investment-trust)
“`
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related investment trusts on AJ Bell
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive screener. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR WhatsApp OR Instagram” with technology sector, market cap >£500 million, NAV premium/discount -20% to +20%, 5-year return sort. Review Investment Trust Select List, KIDs/KIIDs. Cross-reference with Companies House, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes trust holdings for misrepresentation, valuation anomalies for TFEU claims, PEP/sanctions for tort claims, boosting case value for funders.
“`
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The GOV.UK Publications page hosts UK government reports, policy papers, guidance, and transparency data, with an advanced search tool supporting keywords, publication types (e.g., policy paper, transparency data), organizations (e.g., CMA, ICO), topics (e.g., competition, data protection), and date ranges. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, exact phrases (quotation marks), and exclude terms (minus sign). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for regulatory enforcement gaps, supporting tort claims for CMA/ICO inaction and Competition Act 1998 claims (Chapter I, II).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify CMA or ICO reports on Meta’s competition or data protection violations, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction, Competition Act claims for abuse of dominance, and GDPR claims for unlawful processing. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “CMA,” “ICO,” “competition law,” “abuse of dominance,” “data protection,” and “GDPR.” Filters will target CMA and ICO as organizations, policy papers, case decisions, and transparency data as publication types, competition and data protection as topics, and 2016–2025 as the date range. Exact phrases like “abuse of dominant position” and proximity searches (e.g., “Meta NEAR/5 competition”) will refine results. I will cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK for penalties and BAILII for related litigation, per Protocol 2.3. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” guides searches for regulatory gaps in merger scrutiny, supporting tort claims.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the advanced search, enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (CMA OR ICO) AND (‘competition law’ OR ‘abuse of dominant position’ OR ‘data protection’ OR GDPR)” in the keyword field, and “Meta NEAR/5 competition” in the proximity field (if available). Select CMA and ICO under organizations, policy papers, case decisions, and transparency data under publication types, and competition/data protection under topics, setting 2016–2025. Sort by relevance, review results for CMA’s 2021 digital advertising study or ICO GDPR rulings, and note document IDs (e.g., ISBN, URN). Cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK for penalties and BAILII for case law using document titles or IDs. Save PDFs, noting publication dates and metadata. If no Meta results, search “digital advertising” for sector reports. Contact GOV.UK (contact@digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk) for non-public data.
**Findings**
The page may yield CMA’s 2021 digital advertising study, supporting Competition Act claims for Meta’s dominance, or ICO reports on data misuse, supporting GDPR claims. Absence of enforcement actions strengthens tort claims for CMA/ICO inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Evidence of penalties or investigations enhances case value for funders like Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related CMA/ICO reports on GOV.UK Publications
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (CMA OR ICO) AND (‘competition law’ OR ‘abuse of dominant position’ OR ‘data protection’ OR GDPR)” with “Meta NEAR/5 competition,” CMA/ICO, policy papers/case decisions/transparency data, competition/data protection, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK, BAILII. Potential evidence includes CMA/ICO reports for Competition Act/GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The GOV.UK Organisations page lists UK government departments and agencies, with links to their publications, policies, and contact details, but no dedicated search tool for case data. Each organization (e.g., CMA, ICO) has its own search functionality, often supporting keywords and date ranges. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends organization-specific searches for enforcement data, supporting tort and Competition Act claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to access CMA and ICO pages for Meta-related enforcement actions, supporting tort claims for inaction and Competition Act/GDPR claims. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “competition law,” “data protection,” and “GDPR.” I will focus on CMA’s case database and ICO’s enforcement notices from 2016–2025, cross-referencing with data.gov.uk for datasets and Violation Tracker UK for penalties, per Protocol 2.3. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” supports searches for regulatory failures in merger oversight.
**Search Execution**
No direct search is possible on this page. COCOO should navigate to CMA and ICO pages via the Organisations list, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘competition law’ OR ‘data protection’ OR GDPR)” in their respective search fields, and filter for cases/enforcement notices from 2016–2025. Note case IDs (e.g., CMA case 50972), enforcement details, and dates. Cross-reference with data.gov.uk for datasets and Violation Tracker UK for penalties. Save PDFs or CSVs, noting metadata. Contact CMA (general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk) or ICO (casework@ico.org.uk) for non-public data.
**Findings**
CMA/ICO pages may provide case data on Meta’s violations, supporting Competition Act/GDPR claims. Inaction strengthens tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value for funders like Certum.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related CMA/ICO actions via GOV.UK Organisations
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No direct search possible. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘competition law’ OR ‘data protection’ OR GDPR)” on CMA/ICO pages, cases/enforcement notices, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with data.gov.uk, Violation Tracker UK. Potential evidence includes case data for Competition Act/GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/live-markets/market-data-dashboard/price-explorer
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The London Stock Exchange (LSE) Price Explorer provides real-time data on listed companies, including shares, ETFs, and investment trusts, with filters for sector (e.g., technology), market (Main Market, AIM), price, and volume. It supports keyword searches for company names or EPIC/TIDM codes, but no advanced syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends LSE for corporate data, supporting misrepresentation and TFEU claims. Meta is listed as Meta Platforms Inc. (EPIC: META, NASDAQ, not LSE), but UK subsidiaries or trusts may appear.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s UK subsidiaries or investment trusts on LSE, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured and TFEU Article 102 claims for financial influence. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and “technology.” Filters will target technology sector, Main Market/AIM, and 2016–2025 filings (e.g., RNS announcements). I will cross-reference with Companies House for subsidiary details and OpenSanctions for PEP checks, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” guides searches for undisclosed financial ties.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” in the Price Explorer search, select technology sector, Main Market/AIM, and review RNS announcements from 2016–2025. Note company/TIDM codes, shareholdings, and directors. Cross-reference with Companies House using company numbers and OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions. Save RNS PDFs and metadata. If no Meta results, search “technology” for trusts holding Meta shares.
**Findings**
LSE may reveal Meta subsidiaries or trusts, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is opaque, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Financial ties strengthen TFEU claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related entities on LSE Price Explorer
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” with technology sector, Main Market/AIM, RNS 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Companies House, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes subsidiaries/trusts for misrepresentation, financial ties for TFEU claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://www.bidstats.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
Bidstats.uk aggregates UK public sector tender and contract data, with advanced search supporting keywords, CPV codes (e.g., 79340000 for advertising), buyers (e.g., government departments), and contract status (awarded, open). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends procurement portals for Meta’s contracts, supporting tort and consumer protection claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s UK public sector contracts, supporting tort claims for CMA inaction and consumer protection claims (Consumer Protection Regulations 2008) for deceptive practices. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “digital advertising,” and “data services.” Filters will target CPV 79340000, government buyers, and awarded contracts from 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Violation Tracker UK will check compliance, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data services’)” in the search field, select CPV 79340000, government buyers, and awarded contracts 2016–2025. Note contract values, buyers, and dates. Cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK for penalties. Save PDFs or CSVs, noting contract IDs.
**Findings**
Contracts may indicate Meta’s dominance, supporting Competition Act claims, and inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Compliance issues support consumer protection claims, enhancing case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s contracts on Bidstats.uk
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data services’)” with CPV 79340000, government buyers, awarded contracts 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK. Potential evidence includes contracts for Competition Act claims, inaction for tort claims, compliance issues for consumer protection, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The WTO Dispute Settlement page lists trade disputes, with a search tool supporting keywords, dispute numbers (e.g., DS123), countries, and agreements (e.g., GATT Article III.4). No advanced syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends it for trade barrier claims, supporting WTO disputes against Meta’s data localization.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify disputes involving data localization or digital services linked to Meta, supporting WTO claims (GATT Article III.4) and TFEU Article 102 claims. Keywords will include “data localization,” “digital services,” and “United States” (Meta’s base). Filters will target GATT Article III.4 and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Global Trade Alert will quantify impacts, per Protocol 2.4.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “data localization OR ‘digital services’ AND United States” in the search field, select GATT Article III.4 and 2016–2025. Note dispute numbers, parties, and outcomes. Cross-reference with Global Trade Alert. Save dispute summaries as PDFs.
**Findings**
Disputes may implicate Meta’s data practices as trade barriers, supporting WTO/TFEU claims, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf.” Inaction supports tort claims, enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related WTO disputes
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “data localization OR ‘digital services’ AND United States” with GATT Article III.4, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Global Trade Alert. Potential evidence includes trade barriers for WTO/TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://www.oge.gov/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The US Office of Government Ethics (OGE) website provides ethics guidance and financial disclosures for federal officials, with a search tool supporting keywords and document types (e.g., financial disclosures). No advanced syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends ethics databases for PEP checks, supporting misrepresentation claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify US officials with Meta ties, supporting misrepresentation claims if influence obscures ownership, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and “digital advertising.” Filters will target financial disclosures and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with OpenSanctions will check PEP status.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR ‘digital advertising’” in the search field, select financial disclosures, and 2016–2025. Note official names and ties. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions. Save disclosures as PDFs.
**Findings**
Disclosures may reveal Meta’s influence, supporting misrepresentation claims. Inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related disclosures on OGE
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR ‘digital advertising’” with financial disclosures, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes official ties for misrepresentation, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: https://www.congress.gov/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Congress.gov website provides US legislative data, with advanced search supporting keywords, bill numbers, sponsors, and committees. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for regulatory context, supporting tort claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify US legislation on Meta’s data or competition practices, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data privacy,” and “antitrust.” Filters will target bills, 114th–119th Congress (2015–2025). Cross-referencing with SEC EDGAR will link to Meta’s filings.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data privacy’ OR antitrust)” in the search field, select bills, 114th–119th Congress. Note bill numbers and sponsors. Cross-reference with SEC EDGAR. Save bill texts as PDFs.
**Findings**
Legislation may reveal US scrutiny of Meta, supporting tort claims for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Evidence enhances case narrative for funders.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related US legislation
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data privacy’ OR antitrust)” with bills, 114th–119th Congress. Cross-reference with SEC EDGAR. Potential evidence includes legislation for tort claims, boosting case narrative.
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Espacenet website, managed by the European Patent Office, provides global patent data, with advanced search supporting keywords, patent numbers, applicants (e.g., Meta Platforms), and classifications (e.g., CPC G06F for data processing). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and proximity operators (e.g., NEAR/5). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends patent searches for IP-related claims, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for abuse via IP control.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s EU patents, supporting TFEU claims if IP restricts competitors. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data processing,” and “advertising technology.” Filters will target CPC G06F, applicant Meta Platforms, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with USPTO will confirm US patents.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data processing’ OR ‘advertising technology’)” in the advanced search, select CPC G06F, applicant Meta Platforms, and 2016–2025. Note patent numbers and claims. Cross-reference with USPTO. Save patent documents as PDFs.
**Findings**
Patents may indicate Meta’s IP control, supporting TFEU claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Evidence enhances case value for funders like Fortress.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s EU patents on Espacenet
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data processing’ OR ‘advertising technology’)” with CPC G06F, applicant Meta Platforms, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with USPTO. Potential evidence includes patents for TFEU claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 10: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The USPTO Patent Public Search provides US patent data, with advanced search supporting keywords, patent numbers, applicants, and CPC classifications (e.g., G06F). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and proximity operators. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends it for IP-related claims, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s US patents, supporting TFEU claims for IP abuse. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data processing,” and “advertising technology.” Filters will target CPC G06F, applicant Meta Platforms, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Espacenet will confirm EU patents.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data processing’ OR ‘advertising technology’)” in the advanced search, select CPC G06F, applicant Meta Platforms, and 2016–2025. Note patent numbers and claims. Cross-reference with Espacenet. Save patent documents as PDFs.
**Findings**
Patents may support TFEU claims for IP abuse, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Evidence enhances case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s US patents on USPTO
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data processing’ OR ‘advertising technology’)” with CPC G06F, applicant Meta Platforms, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Espacenet. Potential evidence includes patents for TFEU claims, boosting case value.
—
### Conclusion
The SEARCHLINKs offer significant evidence potential, despite my inability to execute searches. AJ Bell may reveal Meta’s financial influence, GOV.UK Publications and Organisations provide regulatory data, LSE and Bidstats.uk uncover financial and contract ties, WTO supports trade barrier claims, OGE and Congress.gov reveal US influence, and Espacenet/USPTO identify IP control. COCOO should implement the detailed search instructions, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions, Companies House, and EUR-Lex, to maximize evidence and enhance case monetization with funders like Fortress or Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.”
SEARCHLINK 1: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/register-of-consultant-lobbyists
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The GOV.UK Register of Consultant Lobbyists page, managed by the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists (ORCL), links to the statutory Register of Consultant Lobbyists, established under the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 (the Act). The Register, hosted at registrarofconsultantlobbyists.org.uk, is publicly accessible and lists organizations or individuals conducting consultant lobbying (direct communications with UK Ministers or Permanent Secretaries on behalf of paying clients), including client names, VAT numbers, addresses, directors, and whether they subscribe to a code of conduct (e.g., CIPR, PRCA) (,,,). The ORCL, an independent statutory body sponsored by the Cabinet Office, monitors compliance, issues civil penalties (up to £7,500) or refers non-compliance (e.g., unregistered lobbying, inaccurate Quarterly Information Returns) to the Director of Public Prosecutions (,). The Register’s search tool, per ORCL’s website, supports queries by lobbyist name, client name, or registration number, with downloadable datasets (CSV format) for bulk analysis. No advanced search syntax (e.g., Boolean operators) is explicitly detailed, but Quarterly Information Returns (QIRs) must be submitted within 14 days of each quarter (January 1, April 1, July 1, October 1), listing clients or stating no lobbying activity (,,). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends using lobbying registers to identify Meta’s influence on regulators, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction and misrepresentation claims if lobbying obscures corporate interests.[](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-registrar-of-consultant-lobbyists)[](https://registrarofconsultantlobbyists.org.uk/)[](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/joining-the-register-of-consultant-lobbyists)
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify consultant lobbyists representing Meta or its subsidiaries (e.g., Facebook Ireland, Meta Platforms UK) to uncover undue influence on UK regulators (e.g., CMA, ICO), supporting tort claims for negligence under common law and misrepresentation claims if lobbying hides beneficial ownership, per “TI_ BORs.pdf” and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.” Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “WhatsApp,” “Instagram,” and “digital advertising” to capture Meta’s lobbying activities. I will search QIRs from 2016–2025 for client lists mentioning Meta, focusing on lobbyists with tech sector clients (SIC 63110). Filters will target active registrants and QIRs, sorting by date (newest first) to identify recent activity. I will cross-reference findings with OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions checks on lobbyists or Meta’s directors (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg) and Companies House for lobbyist company details (e.g., VAT numbers, directors). The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” guides searches for evidence of Meta’s influence via undisclosed mergers ($263.91 billion in business services), which could extend to lobbying efforts to evade scrutiny. I will also check for lobbyists subscribing to codes of conduct (e.g., CIPR’s UK Lobbying Register) to assess ethical compliance, per,.[](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0c70fca9-6148-4046-8494-9c67b3444a45)[](https://lobbying-register.uk/)
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the interactive interface at registrarofconsultantlobbyists.org.uk requiring manual input. COCOO should navigate to the ORCL website’s “Search the Register” section, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR WhatsApp OR Instagram” in the client name field, and “digital advertising” in the general search field to capture related lobbying. Select filters for active registrants and QIRs from 2016–2025, sorting by date (newest first). For each result, note lobbyist details (name, VAT number, address, directors, code of conduct), client names, and QIR dates. Download the Register’s CSV dataset for offline analysis using Excel or Python, filtering for “Meta” or “Facebook” in client columns. Cross-reference lobbyist companies with Companies House using VAT numbers or registration numbers (e.g., 06999618 for Meta Platforms UK) to verify directors and ownership. Check lobbyist directors against OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions status, focusing on UK/US jurisdictions. Review QIRs for lobbying on competition or data protection policies, noting interactions with CMA or ICO. Save all PDFs, CSVs, and metadata (e.g., registration numbers, QIR dates). If no Meta clients are found, search for tech sector lobbyists (SIC 63110) and contact ORCL (office@orcl.gov.uk) for non-confidential QIR summaries, per.[](https://registrarofconsultantlobbyists.org.uk/faqs/)
**Findings**
The Register may reveal lobbyists acting for Meta, indicating influence on CMA or ICO, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction if lobbying delayed scrutiny of Meta’s practices, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP/sanctions hits on lobbyists or Meta’s directors strengthen misrepresentation claims if ownership or influence is obscured, aligning with “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Evidence of lobbying for relaxed data or competition rules (e.g., GDPR exemptions, merger approvals) supports TFEU Article 102 claims for abuse of dominance, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4). Absence of Meta in QIRs may suggest unregistered lobbying, a violation of the Act, warranting a complaint to ORCL for investigation (). Such findings enhance case value for sale to funders like Fortress, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION,” by demonstrating Meta’s regulatory influence ().[](https://registrarofconsultantlobbyists.org.uk/faqs/)[](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-registrar-of-consultant-lobbyists)
“`
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related lobbyists on Register of Consultant Lobbyists
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR WhatsApp OR Instagram” in client name, “digital advertising” in general search, active registrants, QIRs 2016–2025, sorted by date. Download CSV dataset, filter for Meta clients. Cross-reference with Companies House, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes lobbyist influence for tort claims, PEP/sanctions for misrepresentation, unregistered lobbying for Act violations, TFEU claims for dominance, enhancing case value for funders.
“`
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://www.lobbying.scot/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Scottish Lobbying Register, managed by the Scottish Parliament, records lobbying activities with MSPs, ministers, and senior officials under the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016. The register’s search tool supports queries by lobbyist name, organization, client, MSP, and date, with filters for regulated lobbying (direct communications to influence policy) and status (active, inactive). No advanced syntax (e.g., Boolean operators) is specified, but searches can include keywords and date ranges. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends regional lobbying registers to identify Meta’s influence on devolved policies, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction and consumer protection claims (e.g., deceptive practices under Consumer Protection Regulations 2008).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s lobbying of Scottish officials on data or competition policies, supporting tort claims against UK regulators for inaction and consumer protection claims if lobbying promotes deceptive practices. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” “digital advertising,” and “privacy.” Filters will target regulated lobbying, active status, and 2016–2025. I will focus on MSPs or ministers linked to digital economy policies, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions for PEP status and Companies House for lobbyist details. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” suggests Meta’s influence may extend to regional regulators, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for market dominance. I will also check for lobbying by tech sector firms (SIC 63110) to identify Meta’s proxies.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the “Search the Register” page, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘data protection’ OR ‘digital advertising’ OR privacy)” in the keyword field, select regulated lobbying, active status, and 2016–2025. Filter for MSPs or ministers with digital economy portfolios (e.g., Cabinet Secretary for Economy). For each result, note lobbyist organization, client, MSP, meeting purpose, and date. Search for tech sector firms (SIC 63110) to identify Meta proxies. Cross-reference lobbyist details with Companies House using organization names and OpenSanctions for PEP checks. Save results as PDFs or CSVs, noting meeting IDs. If no Meta results appear, contact lobbyingregister@parliament.scot for non-confidential summaries.
**Findings**
The register may reveal Meta’s lobbying of Scottish officials, supporting tort claims if it delayed scrutiny of data practices, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits on lobbyists or MSPs strengthen misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Lobbying for relaxed data policies supports consumer protection claims for deceptive practices and TFEU claims for dominance. Absence of Meta may indicate unregistered lobbying, warranting a complaint to the Scottish Parliament, enhancing case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related lobbying on Scottish Lobbying Register
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook AND (‘data protection’ OR ‘digital advertising’ OR privacy)” with regulated lobbying, active status, 2016–2025, MSPs with economy portfolios. Cross-reference with Companies House, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes lobbying for tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, consumer protection/TFEU claims, unregistered lobbying, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Case Tracker for Civil Appeals, managed by HM Courts & Tribunals Service, tracks appeals in the UK Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The search tool supports queries by case number, party name, or hearing date, with filters for court (Royal Courts of Justice, regional), status (pending, decided), and date range. No advanced syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) recommends court trackers for competition law appeals, supporting Competition Act 1998 claims and tort claims for regulatory inaction.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify appeals involving Meta, particularly related to the Gormsen case or CMA decisions, supporting Competition Act 1998 (Chapter II) claims for abuse of dominance and tort claims against the CMA. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “Gormsen,” and “competition law.” Filters will target Royal Courts of Justice, pending/decided status, and 2016–2025. I will cross-reference with BAILII for judgments and CAT for case origins, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” guides searches for appeal outcomes on Meta’s acquisitions.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access the Case Tracker, enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR Gormsen” in the party name field, select Royal Courts of Justice, pending/decided status, and 2016–2025. For each result, note case number (e.g., CA-2023-000123), parties, hearing date, and outcome. Cross-reference with BAILII using case numbers and CAT for related cases. Save results as PDFs, noting appeal status. If no results, search “competition law” for sector appeals.
**Findings**
The tracker may reveal Meta-related appeals, supporting Competition Act claims if linked to Gormsen or CMA rulings. Outcomes on acquisitions strengthen TFEU Article 102 claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Absence of appeals supports tort claims for CMA inaction, enhancing case value for funders like Certum.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related appeals on Case Tracker
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR Gormsen” with Royal Courts of Justice, pending/decided, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with BAILII, CAT. Potential evidence includes appeals for Competition Act claims, acquisition outcomes for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) Cause List page lists daily hearings for civil and criminal cases, including Business and Property Courts. No search tool is provided, but lists are browsable by date, court, and case type (e.g., competition). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) recommends cause lists for tracking ongoing litigation, supporting Competition Act 1998 claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta-related hearings in the Business and Property Courts, supporting Competition Act claims and tort claims for CMA inaction. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “competition law,” and “Gormsen.” I will focus on 2024–2025 lists, cross-referencing with BAILII and Case Tracker for case details, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” for acquisition-related litigation.
**Search Execution**
No search is possible due to the browsable format. COCOO should access the RCJ Cause List, use browser search (Ctrl+F) with “Meta OR Facebook OR Gormsen OR competition law” for 2024–2025 lists, focusing on Business and Property Courts. Note case numbers, parties, and hearing dates. Cross-reference with BAILII and Case Tracker. Save PDFs of lists.
**Findings**
Cause lists may reveal Meta hearings, supporting Competition Act claims. Absence of cases supports tort claims for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related hearings on RCJ Cause List
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No search possible due to browsable format. Recommended browser search: “Meta OR Facebook OR Gormsen OR competition law” in 2024–2025 Business and Property Courts lists. Cross-reference with BAILII, Case Tracker. Potential evidence includes hearings for Competition Act claims, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Find a Tender Service, part of GOV.UK, lists UK public sector procurement notices, with advanced search supporting keywords, CPV codes (e.g., 79340000 for advertising), organization, region, and status (open, closed). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends procurement portals to identify Meta’s government contracts, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction and consumer protection claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s UK public sector contracts for digital advertising or data services, supporting tort claims for CMA inaction and consumer protection claims for deceptive practices. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “digital advertising,” and “data services.” Filters will target CPV 79340000, UK regions, and closed contracts from 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Violation Tracker UK will check for compliance issues, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data services’)” in the keyword field, select CPV 79340000, UK regions, and closed contracts 2016–2025. Note contract details (e.g., value, awarding body). Cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK. Save notices as PDFs.
**Findings**
Contracts may indicate Meta’s market dominance, supporting Competition Act claims, and regulatory inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Compliance issues support consumer protection claims, enhancing case value for funders.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s contracts on Find a Tender
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘data services’)” with CPV 79340000, UK regions, closed contracts 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK. Potential evidence includes contracts for Competition Act claims, inaction for tort claims, compliance issues for consumer protection, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
LobbyFacts.eu, managed by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl, tracks EU lobbying activities, with a search tool for the EU Transparency Register, covering organizations, consultants, and meetings with EC officials. It supports keywords, filters for country, sector (e.g., ICT), and lobbying costs, with Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends it for Meta’s EU lobbying, supporting TFEU and tort claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s EU lobbying, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for dominance and tort claims for EC inaction. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” and “digital advertising.” Filters will target ICT sector, Ireland/Spain jurisdictions, and lobbying costs >€1 million, 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with OpenSanctions and EUR-Lex will check for PEPs and regulatory actions.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR ‘digital advertising’)” in the search field, select ICT sector, Ireland/Spain, costs >€1 million, and 2016–2025. Note lobbyist details, clients, and meeting purposes. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions and EUR-Lex. Save results as CSVs.
**Findings**
Lobbying data may reveal Meta’s influence on EC policies, supporting TFEU claims and tort claims for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP hits strengthen misrepresentation claims, enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s EU lobbying on LobbyFacts
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR ‘digital advertising’)” with ICT sector, Ireland/Spain, costs >€1 million, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions, EUR-Lex. Potential evidence includes lobbying for TFEU/tort claims, PEP hits for misrepresentation, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EC Press Corner provides press releases, statements, and speeches, with a search tool supporting keywords, policy areas (e.g., competition, digital), languages (English, Spanish), and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for EC actions on Meta, supporting TFEU and DMA claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify EC statements on Meta’s DMA or GDPR violations, supporting follow-on claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “Digital Markets Act,” “GDPR,” and “competition.” Filters will target competition/digital policy areas, English/Spanish, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with EUR-Lex will confirm actions.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘Digital Markets Act’ OR GDPR OR competition)” in the search field, select competition/digital policies, English/Spanish, and 2016–2025. Cross-reference with EUR-Lex. Save press releases as PDFs.
**Findings**
Press releases may detail Meta’s DMA investigations, supporting TFEU/GDPR claims. Inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related EC statements
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘Digital Markets Act’ OR GDPR OR competition)” with competition/digital policies, English/Spanish, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with EUR-Lex. Potential evidence includes DMA/GDPR actions for follow-on claims, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EC Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform facilitates consumer disputes with traders, with no search tool for case data. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) suggests consumer platforms for public complaints, supporting consumer protection claims (Ley de Competencia Desleal).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to explore Meta-related consumer complaints, supporting consumer protection claims. No search is possible, but COCOO can file a test complaint to probe Meta’s practices. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” and “data misuse.” Cross-referencing with Have Your Say will capture consumer sentiment.
**Search Execution**
No search is possible. COCOO should file a test complaint against Meta for data misuse, noting response details, and cross-reference with Have Your Say for feedback.
**Findings**
Complaints may support consumer protection claims for deceptive practices, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Limited utility due to no search, but enhances case narrative.
Search Performed: Planned review of Meta-related complaints on EC ODR
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No search possible due to no search tool. Recommended filing test complaint for Meta’s data misuse, cross-reference with Have Your Say. Potential evidence includes complaints for consumer protection claims, limited but supports case narrative.
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-funding/getting-funding/tenders/index_en.htm
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Your Europe Tenders page links to TED (Tenders Electronic Daily), the EU public procurement portal, with advanced search supporting keywords, CPV codes (e.g., 79340000 for advertising), countries, and status. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends it for Meta’s EU contracts, supporting TFEU claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s EU contracts, supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for dominance. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and “digital advertising.” Filters will target CPV 79340000, Ireland/Spain, and closed contracts 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with LobbyFacts will check lobbying ties.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should access TED via the page, enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND ‘digital advertising’” in the search field, select CPV 79340000, Ireland/Spain, and closed contracts 2016–2025. Cross-reference with LobbyFacts. Save notices as PDFs.
**Findings**
Contracts may indicate Meta’s dominance, supporting TFEU claims. Inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s EU contracts on TED
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND ‘digital advertising’” with CPV 79340000, Ireland/Spain, closed contracts 2016–2025. Cross-reference with LobbyFacts. Potential evidence includes contracts for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 10: https://www.ajbell.co.uk/market-research/screener/shares
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The AJ Bell share screener provides data on publicly traded companies, with filters for sector (e.g., technology), market cap, and financial metrics. No advanced syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” does not reference this, and it’s irrelevant for litigation evidence.
**Search Strategy**
No strategy is viable due to irrelevance. The site offers no legal or regulatory data for Meta’s case.
**Search Execution**
No search is necessary.
**Findings**
The site is irrelevant, providing no evidence.
Search Performed: Reviewed AJ Bell share screener
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Irrelevant to Meta case, no legal/regulatory data. No evidence obtained.
—
### Conclusion
The SEARCHLINKs offer significant evidence potential, despite my inability to execute searches. The Register of Consultant Lobbyists, Scottish Lobbying Register, and LobbyFacts reveal Meta’s influence, supporting tort and TFEU claims. Case Tracker, RCJ Cause List, Find a Tender, and Your Europe Tenders provide litigation and contract data for Competition Act and TFEU claims. EC Press Corner and ODR support GDPR and consumer protection claims, while AJ Bell is irrelevant. COCOO should implement the detailed search instructions, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions, Companies House, and EUR-Lex, to maximize evidence and enhance case monetization with funders like Fortress or Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.”
SEARCHLINK 1: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EUR-Lex website, managed by the Publications Office of the European Union, is the official gateway to EU legal documents, including the Official Journal (OJ), treaties, regulations, directives, decisions, case law, and preparatory acts, available in 24 EU languages and updated daily (,,). It contains over 2000 summaries of EU legislation, consolidated texts (integrating amendments into a single document, non-binding for reference), and national transposition measures (,,). The advanced search supports keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), exact phrases (quotation marks), wildcards (asterisk for variations, e.g., “transp*”; question mark for single-character variations, e.g., “ca?e”), CELEX numbers (e.g., 32012L0019 for directives), document types (e.g., regulation, case law), EuroVoc thesaurus terms (e.g., “anti-competitive practice” code 3216, “personal data” code 3236), and filters for dates, institutions, and sectors (,). Sectors include treaties (1), international agreements (2), legislation (3), preparatory acts (5), and case law (8) (). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) recommends EUR-Lex for EU case law and legislation, critical for GDPR (Articles 5, 6, 9, 22), DMA (Articles 5, 6), and TFEU (Articles 101, 102) claims. Users can register for personalized features like saved searches or webservice queries ().[](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUR-Lex)[](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/welcome/about.html)
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify EU documents, case law, and infringement decisions involving Meta to support follow-on claims for GDPR violations (e.g., 2017 AEPD fine precedent), DMA breaches (e.g., Marketplace tying), and TFEU violations (e.g., abuse of dominance, anti-competitive agreements), as well as tort claims against regulators for inaction. I will target regulations, case law, and preparatory acts from 2016–2025, focusing on Meta’s data practices, digital advertising, and acquisitions. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” “GDPR,” “Digital Markets Act,” “abuse of dominant position,” “anti-competitive agreement,” and EuroVoc terms “personal data” (3236), “anti-competitive practice” (3216), and “digital market” (newer term). Filters will include document types (regulation, directive, decision, case law), institutions (European Commission, CJEU), and sectors (3, 5, 8). Proximity searches (e.g., “Meta NEAR/5 competition”) and CELEX searches (e.g., 32016R0679 for GDPR) will refine results. I will cross-reference findings with OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions checks on Meta’s directors and Companies House for UK entity data, per “TI_ BORs.pdf” and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.” The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” guides searches for undisclosed mergers in business services ($263.91 billion), supporting TFEU claims.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the interactive interface requiring manual input. COCOO should access the EUR-Lex advanced search page, enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR GDPR OR ‘Digital Markets Act’ OR ‘abuse of dominant position’ OR ‘anti-competitive agreement’ OR ‘personal data’ OR ‘anti-competitive practice’)” in the full-text search field, and use proximity search “Meta NEAR/5 competition” for precision. Select document types “Regulation,” “Directive,” “Decision,” and “Case-law,” institutions “European Commission” and “Court of Justice,” and sectors 3 (legislation), 5 (preparatory acts), and 8 (case law). Set the date range to 2016–2025 and language to English/Spanish. Use EuroVoc terms “personal data” (code 3236) and “anti-competitive practice” (code 3216) in the “Theme” field. Search CELEX number “32016R0679” (GDPR) and “32024R1689” (AI Act) for related obligations. Sort results by relevance, review case law for CJEU rulings on Meta (e.g., DMA investigations), and check preparatory acts for EC proposals on digital markets. Save documents as PDFs, noting CELEX numbers (e.g., 32012L0019 format: sector-year-type-number). Cross-reference with OpenSanctions for PEP checks and Companies House for Meta’s UK entities. Register for a My EUR-Lex account to save searches and enable webservice queries for ongoing monitoring.
**Findings**
EUR-Lex likely contains GDPR-related decisions (e.g., post-2017 AEPD fine equivalents), DMA investigation updates (e.g., Marketplace tying, interoperability refusals), and CJEU rulings on competition law, supporting follow-on claims for GDPR (Articles 5, 6, 9, 22) and TFEU (Articles 101, 102) violations. The AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) may impose additional obligations on Meta’s algorithmic practices (e.g., emotional profiling), relevant for GDPR Article 9 claims, with guidelines due by February 2026 (). Preparatory acts or EC reports may reveal Meta’s undisclosed acquisitions, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” strengthening TFEU Article 102 claims for market consolidation. Lack of enforcement actions supports tort claims against EC bodies for inaction, per “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.” These findings enhance case value for sale to litigation funders like Fortress, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” ().[](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng)[](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html)
“`
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related EU documents on EUR-Lex
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR GDPR OR ‘Digital Markets Act’ OR ‘abuse of dominant position’ OR ‘anti-competitive agreement’ OR ‘personal data’ OR ‘anti-competitive practice’)” with “Meta NEAR/5 competition,” Regulation/Directive/Decision/Case-law types, European Commission/CJEU, sectors 3/5/8, 2016–2025, EuroVoc codes 3236/3216. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions, Companies House. Potential evidence includes GDPR/DMA decisions for follow-on claims, AI Act obligations, undisclosed mergers for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value for funders.
“`
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/business-and-property-courts
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Business and Property Courts of England and Wales website, part of GOV.UK, provides information on specialized courts handling commercial, financial, and intellectual property disputes, including competition law cases under the Competition Act 1998. It includes case lists, judgments, and procedural guidance, but no dedicated search tool is available. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) suggests using court websites for case law precedent, critical for Competition Act claims (Chapter I, II) and consumer protection claims (Consumer Rights Act 2015). Users can browse case lists or judgments by court (e.g., Chancery Division, Commercial Court) and date.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta-related cases in the Business and Property Courts, supporting Competition Act 1998 claims for abuse of dominance or anti-competitive agreements, and consumer protection claims for deceptive practices. I will focus on Chancery Division or Commercial Court judgments involving Meta or Facebook from 2016–2025. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “competition law,” “abuse of dominance,” and “consumer protection.” I will cross-reference findings with BAILII for full judgments and Violation Tracker UK for penalty data, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3). This supports tort claims against the CMA for inaction if no cases are found, aligning with “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” evidence of regulatory gaps.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the lack of a search tool and interactive browsing requirements. COCOO should navigate to the case lists or judgments section, use browser search (Ctrl+F) with “Meta OR Facebook AND (competition OR ‘abuse of dominance’ OR ‘consumer protection’)” for 2016–2025 documents in Chancery Division or Commercial Court. Manually review case summaries for Meta-related disputes, noting case numbers (e.g., HC-2023-000123 format). Cross-reference with BAILII using case numbers and Violation Tracker UK for penalties. Save PDFs and metadata for evidence compilation.
**Findings**
The courts may include Meta-related competition or consumer protection cases, supporting stand-alone claims under the Competition Act 1998 or Consumer Rights Act 2015. Absence of cases strengthens tort claims against the CMA for failing to address Meta’s practices, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Evidence of penalties or settlements enhances case value for funders like Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related cases on Business and Property Courts
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to no search tool. Recommended browser search: “Meta OR Facebook AND (competition OR ‘abuse of dominance’ OR ‘consumer protection’)” in Chancery/Commercial Court judgments, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with BAILII, Violation Tracker UK. Potential evidence includes competition/consumer cases for stand-alone claims, inaction for tort claims, enhancing case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/advanced-search
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Companies House advanced search page provides access to UK company data, including directors, shareholders, and filings, with filters for company name, number, status (active, dissolved), SIC code (e.g., 63110 for data processing), incorporation date, and officer name. It supports exact phrases and partial matches, but no explicit Boolean syntax is detailed. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends it for mapping Meta’s UK entities, supporting GDPR (Articles 5, 9) and misrepresentation claims. This updates the previous Companies House search (artifact_id: efcb7c2c-04cc-413a-8bbb-7f395e556f8c) with advanced options.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify Meta’s UK entities (e.g., Meta Platforms UK) and directors, supporting GDPR claims for unlawful data processing and misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and director names (e.g., “Mark Zuckerberg,” “Sheryl Sandberg”). Filters will target SIC 63110, active status, incorporation 2000–2025, and officer searches. I will cross-reference with OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions checks and “TI_ BORs.pdf” for beneficial ownership transparency, aligning with “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.” Financial filings will support damages calculations ($100/user/year).
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” in the company name field, select SIC 63110, active status, and incorporation 2000–2025. In the officer search, enter “Mark Zuckerberg” and “Sheryl Sandberg,” filtering for active appointments. Retrieve director lists, shareholder details, and recent filings (e.g., annual accounts, confirmation statements). Cross-reference with OpenSanctions for PEP screening and SEC EDGAR for US filings. Save filings as PDFs, noting company numbers (e.g., 06999618). Use the “Download” feature to export data for analysis.
**Findings**
Companies House likely reveals Meta’s UK entities, identifying nominees or PEPs, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is opaque, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Financial filings (e.g., revenue data) aid GDPR damages calculations, while lack of regulatory scrutiny supports tort claims against the CMA, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Evidence strengthens case value for funders like Certum.
Search Performed: Planned advanced search for Meta’s UK entities on Companies House
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” with SIC 63110, active status, 2000–2025; officer search “Mark Zuckerberg,” “Sheryl Sandberg.” Cross-reference with OpenSanctions, SEC EDGAR. Potential evidence includes nominee/PEP data for misrepresentation, financials for GDPR damages, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk/sic/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Companies House SIC code page lists Standard Industrial Classification codes for UK businesses, with no search functionality. SIC 63110 (data processing, hosting, and related activities) is relevant for Meta’s operations. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends SIC codes to filter company searches, supporting GDPR and competition claims by identifying Meta’s sector activities.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to use SIC 63110 to refine Companies House searches for Meta’s UK entities, supporting GDPR (Articles 5, 9) and Competition Act 1998 claims (Chapter II). I will apply SIC 63110 in the Companies House advanced search (SEARCHLINK 3) to focus on Meta’s data processing activities. No direct search is possible on this page, but I will cross-reference with OpenCorporates for entity data and Violation Tracker UK for penalties.
**Search Execution**
No search is possible on this static page. COCOO should use SIC 63110 in the Companies House advanced search, entering “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” with SIC 63110, active status, and 2000–2025. Retrieve entity details and cross-reference with OpenCorporates and Violation Tracker UK. Save data for evidence.
**Findings**
SIC 63110 ensures precise targeting of Meta’s UK data processing entities, supporting GDPR claims for unlawful processing and Competition Act claims for market dominance. Regulatory inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned use of SIC 63110 for Meta’s UK entities
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No search possible on static SIC page. Recommended use of SIC 63110 in Companies House search for “Meta Platforms OR Facebook,” active status, 2000–2025. Cross-reference with OpenCorporates, Violation Tracker UK. Potential evidence includes entity data for GDPR/competition claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://petition.parliament.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The UK Parliament Petitions website allows searching for public petitions, with filters for keyword, status (open, closed, rejected), and signatures. No advanced syntax is specified, but “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) suggests petitions for public interest arguments, supporting tort claims against regulators or consumer protection claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify petitions against Meta’s data or competition practices, supporting consumer protection (Consumer Protection Regulations 2008) and tort claims for CMA inaction. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “data privacy,” “digital advertising,” and “competition.” Filters will target open/closed petitions with over 10,000 signatures (triggering government response) from 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with BAILII will link petitions to legal actions.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta OR Facebook AND (‘data privacy’ OR competition OR ‘digital advertising’)” in the search field, select open/closed status, and filter for >10,000 signatures, 2016–2025. Review petition texts for public complaints, cross-reference with BAILII for related cases. Save petition details.
**Findings**
Petitions may reveal public concerns about Meta’s practices, supporting consumer protection claims for deceptive practices and tort claims for regulatory inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” High-signature petitions strengthen public interest arguments for case monetization.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related petitions on UK Parliament Petitions
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta OR Facebook AND (‘data privacy’ OR competition OR ‘digital advertising’)” with open/closed status, >10,000 signatures, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with BAILII. Potential evidence includes public complaints for consumer protection, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Register of Members’ Financial Interests lists UK MPs’ financial interests, with no search tool but browsable PDF registers by parliamentary session. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) suggests checking for MPs’ ties to Meta, supporting public interest arguments for tort claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify MPs with financial ties to Meta, supporting tort claims against the CMA for inaction if conflicts exist. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” and “digital advertising.” I will focus on registers from 2016–2025, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions for PEP status.
**Search Execution**
No search is possible due to PDF-based registers. COCOO should download registers for 2016–2025, use PDF search (Ctrl+F) with “Meta OR Facebook OR ‘digital advertising’,” and note MPs with relevant interests. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions for PEP screening. Save findings.
**Findings**
MPs with Meta ties may indicate regulatory bias, supporting tort claims for inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” PEP data strengthens public interest arguments, enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related MP interests
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No search possible on PDF registers. Recommended PDF search: “Meta OR Facebook OR ‘digital advertising’” in 2016–2025 registers. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes MP ties for tort claims, PEP data for public interest.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/interests/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
TheyWorkForYou provides MP voting records and financial interests, with a search tool supporting keywords but no advanced syntax. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends it for public interest evidence, supporting tort claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify MPs with Meta-related interests, supporting tort claims for CMA inaction. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” and “digital advertising.” I will focus on 2016–2025, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions and Parliament Petitions for public sentiment.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta OR Facebook OR ‘digital advertising’” in the search field, review MP interest profiles for 2016–2025, and cross-reference with OpenSanctions and petitions. Save findings.
**Findings**
MP ties to Meta may support tort claims for regulatory bias, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Public sentiment data enhances case value for mediation or sale.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related MP interests on TheyWorkForYou
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta OR Facebook OR ‘digital advertising’” for 2016–2025. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions, petitions. Potential evidence includes MP ties for tort claims, public sentiment for case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The HUDOC database of the European Court of Human Rights provides ECHR case law, with advanced search supporting keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), exact phrases, case numbers, states (e.g., UK, Spain), and articles (e.g., Article 8 for privacy). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) recommends it for human rights precedents, supporting GDPR claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify ECHR cases on Meta’s data practices, supporting GDPR (Article 8 ECHR, Articles 5, 9 GDPR) claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” and “privacy.” Filters will target UK/Spain, Article 8, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with EUR-Lex will link to EU law.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR privacy)” in the text field, select UK/Spain, Article 8, and 2016–2025. Use “Meta NEAR/5 privacy” for precision. Cross-reference with EUR-Lex. Save judgments.
**Findings**
ECHR cases may support GDPR claims by establishing privacy violations, strengthening damages arguments. Lack of cases supports tort claims for regulatory inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related ECHR cases
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘data protection’ OR privacy)” with UK/Spain, Article 8, 2016–2025, “Meta NEAR/5 privacy.” Cross-reference with EUR-Lex. Potential evidence includes privacy violations for GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/have-your-say
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EC’s Have Your Say portal allows public feedback on EU initiatives, with a search tool supporting keywords, policy areas (e.g., competition, data protection), and stages (e.g., open, closed). No advanced syntax is specified. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.5) recommends it for public sentiment, supporting tort and consumer protection claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify public feedback on Meta’s data or competition practices, supporting consumer protection (Ley de Competencia Desleal) and tort claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” and “competition.” Filters will target competition/data policy areas and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with EUR-Lex will link to legislation.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta OR Facebook AND (‘data protection’ OR competition)” in the search field, select competition/data policy areas, and 2016–2025. Review feedback for public concerns, cross-reference with EUR-Lex. Save feedback texts.
**Findings**
Public feedback may highlight Meta’s deceptive practices, supporting consumer protection claims, and regulatory inaction, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” boosting case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related feedback on Have Your Say
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta OR Facebook AND (‘data protection’ OR competition)” with competition/data areas, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with EUR-Lex. Potential evidence includes public concerns for consumer protection, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 10: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The National Archives website provides UK government records, with an advanced search supporting keywords, record types (e.g., government reports), departments, and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for regulatory documents, supporting tort claims.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify CMA or ICO reports on Meta, supporting tort claims for inaction and Competition Act 1998 claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “CMA,” “ICO,” “competition,” and “data protection.” Filters will target CMA/ICO departments, reports, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with data.gov.uk will confirm data.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (CMA OR ICO) AND (competition OR ‘data protection’)” in the advanced search, select CMA/ICO, reports, and 2016–2025. Cross-reference with data.gov.uk. Save documents.
**Findings**
Reports may reveal CMA/ICO inaction, supporting tort claims, and competition/data violations, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” enhancing case value for funders.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related CMA/ICO reports on National Archives
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (CMA OR ICO) AND (competition OR ‘data protection’)” with CMA/ICO, reports, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with data.gov.uk. Potential evidence includes inaction for tort claims, violations for competition claims.
—
### Conclusion
The SEARCHLINKs offer robust evidence collection potential, despite my inability to execute searches. EUR-Lex provides GDPR/DMA case law and legislation, Business and Property Courts and BAILII offer UK competition precedents, Companies House and SIC codes map Meta’s entities, Petitions and parliamentary registers reveal public and MP concerns, HUDOC supports GDPR claims, Have Your Say captures public sentiment, and National Archives uncovers regulatory inaction. COCOO should implement the detailed search instructions, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions, Violation Tracker UK, and SEC EDGAR, to maximize evidence and enhance case monetization with funders like Fortress or Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.”
SEARCHLINK 1: https://www.tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The TRON Trade Defence Instruments website, managed by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade, serves as a single contact point for electronic communication in trade defence proceedings, including anti-dumping, anti-subsidy, and safeguard investigations (web:0). It facilitates web notifications (Commission sharing documents with interested parties) and web submissions (parties uploading documents via file upload or online forms). The platform requires an EU Login account for access, with a Service Desk for support (TRADE-SERVICE-DESK@ec.europa.eu, +32.2/297.97.97). The site is not fully compliant with WCAG accessibility standards, with issues like missing alternative text for images (web:23). No explicit advanced search syntax is provided, but the “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) identifies TRON as a key tool for tracking trade defence investigations (TDIs) and reported trade barriers, relevant for WTO dispute claims under GATT Article III.4. The site’s case database likely allows filtering by case type, company, and status, based on similar EC platforms (web:1, web:2, web:8, web:9, web:17).
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify trade defence investigations involving Meta’s data localization practices or digital advertising restrictions, supporting a WTO dispute claim (GATT Article III.4) for discriminatory barriers harming EU tech firms, and TFEU Article 102 claims for exclusionary conduct. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” recommends using TRON to find “LIST OF EXISTING REPORTED TRADE BARRIERS” (page 9). I will search for cases involving Meta or its subsidiaries (e.g., Facebook Ireland), focusing on data processing (NACE 6311) and harmful trade measures. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data localization,” “digital advertising,” and “trade barrier.” Filters will target anti-dumping or safeguard cases, EU member states (UK, Spain), and ongoing/closed status from 2016–2025. I will cross-reference findings with Access2Markets to quantify trade impacts, per Protocol 2.4, and with OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions checks on Meta’s entities, supporting misrepresentation claims. This aligns with “TI_ BORs.pdf” for transparency in corporate structures and “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” for evidence of Meta’s market dominance.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the requirement for an EU Login account and the interactive nature of TRON’s interface. COCOO should create an EU Login account, access the TRON case database, and enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (data localization OR ‘digital advertising’ OR ‘trade barrier’)” in the search field, assuming a keyword input similar to other EC platforms. Select filters for “anti-dumping” and “safeguard” case types, EU jurisdictions (UK, Spain), and 2016–2025. Review case documents for evidence of Meta’s data practices as trade barriers, noting affected EU firms (e.g., Wallapop). Submit a web request to the Service Desk for non-confidential case summaries if access is restricted. Cross-reference results with Access2Markets for trade flow data and OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions screening of Meta’s directors. Save all documents and metadata for evidence compilation.
**Findings**
TRON likely contains data on trade defence investigations, potentially implicating Meta’s data localization policies as barriers, supporting WTO claims if EU tech firms are harmed, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (page 29). Such evidence could also bolster TFEU Article 102 claims for exclusionary conduct, as Meta’s practices may restrict competitors’ market access. PEP/sanctions hits on Meta’s personnel, per “TI_ BORs.pdf,” would strengthen misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured. Lack of Meta-specific cases may indicate regulatory inaction, supporting tort claims against EC bodies for failing to address digital market barriers, aligning with “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” evidence of undisclosed mergers ($263.91 billion in business services). Findings enhance case value for sale to funders like Fortress, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” (web:0).
“`
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related trade defence cases on TRON
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to EU Login requirement and interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (data localization OR ‘digital advertising’ OR ‘trade barrier’)” with anti-dumping/safeguard filters, UK/Spain, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Access2Markets, OpenSanctions. Potential evidence includes trade barriers for WTO/TFEU claims, PEP/sanctions for misrepresentation, inaction for tort claims, enhancing case value for funders.
“`
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade website outlines EU trade policies, agreements, and economic security, serving 500 million consumers through trade negotiations and defence measures (web:3, web:12). It links to Access2Markets for trade barrier data and TRON for TDIs, but the main site focuses on policy overviews, news, and documents, with no dedicated search tool. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) references Access2Markets within this domain for trade barrier analysis, critical for WTO claims. I will use the site’s document library (e.g., tradoc PDFs) to find trade-related complaints against Meta, per web results (web:11, web:19).
**Search Strategy**
I will search the document library for trade complaints or investigations involving Meta’s data practices, supporting WTO (GATT Article III.4) and TFEU Article 102 claims. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “data localization,” “digital services,” and “trade barrier.” I will focus on tradoc documents from 2016–2025, filtering for competition or tech sector issues. Cross-referencing with Access2Markets and OpenSanctions will quantify impacts and check for PEPs, per “TI_ BORs.pdf” and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the lack of a search tool and interactive document access. COCOO should navigate to the document library, search for tradoc PDFs using browser search (Ctrl+F) with “Meta OR Facebook AND (data localization OR ‘trade barrier’)” for 2016–2025 documents. Access linked Access2Markets portal, enter “data localization AND Meta” in the trade barriers search, and filter for tech sector. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions for PEP screening. Save relevant PDFs and metadata.
**Findings**
The site may yield tradoc documents on Meta’s data practices as trade barriers, supporting WTO claims and TFEU exclusionary conduct claims, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf.” PEP hits strengthen misrepresentation claims, while regulatory inaction supports tort claims against EC bodies, aligning with “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Evidence enhances case monetization potential (web:12).
Search Performed: Planned document search on EC Trade website
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to no search tool. Recommended browser search in tradoc PDFs for “Meta OR Facebook AND (data localization OR ‘trade barrier’)” 2016–2025, with Access2Markets cross-reference. Potential evidence includes trade barriers for WTO/TFEU claims, PEPs for misrepresentation, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://showvoc.op.europa.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The ShowVoc portal provides access to EuroVoc, a multilingual thesaurus for EU policy terms, used to index and search EU documents. It supports searches by keyword, language (e.g., English, Spanish), and thesaurus hierarchy (e.g., competition, data protection). Advanced features include Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), exact phrases, and proximity searches (e.g., term1 NEAR/5 term2). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (page 5) recommends EuroVoc for tracing legislative intent, critical for GDPR (Articles 5, 6, 9, 22) and TFEU (Articles 101, 102) claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for EU documents on competition and data protection involving Meta, supporting GDPR and TFEU claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “data protection,” “competition,” “abuse of dominance,” and EuroVoc terms like “anti-competitive practice” (code 3216) and “personal data” (code 3236). Filters will target English/Spanish languages and 2016–2025. Proximity searches (e.g., “Meta NEAR/5 competition”) will refine results. Cross-referencing with CURIA will identify case law, per Protocol 2.2.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘anti-competitive practice’ OR ‘personal data’ OR ‘data protection’)” in the search field, select English/Spanish, and filter for 2016–2025. Use proximity search “Meta NEAR/5 competition” and cross-reference with CURIA for CJEU rulings. Save documents for evidence.
**Findings**
ShowVoc may yield EU policy documents on Meta’s data or competition practices, supporting GDPR claims (e.g., 2017 AEPD fine precedent) and TFEU claims for abuse of dominance. Legislative intent data strengthens statutory interpretation, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf.” Regulatory gaps support tort claims, enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related EU documents on ShowVoc
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘anti-competitive practice’ OR ‘personal data’ OR ‘data protection’)” in English/Spanish, 2016–2025, with “Meta NEAR/5 competition.” Potential evidence includes policy documents for GDPR/TFEU claims, legislative intent for statutory arguments, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Eurostat website provides EU statistical data, including trade, industry, and digital economy metrics. The search tool supports keywords, dataset filters (e.g., NACE 6311 for data processing), and date ranges. No specific advanced syntax is detailed, but “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) suggests using Eurostat for sector-wide analysis to identify market dominance or trade impacts, supporting TFEU and WTO claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for digital economy data to quantify Meta’s market share in data processing (NACE 6311), supporting TFEU Article 102 claims for abuse of dominance. Keywords include “data processing,” “digital advertising,” “Meta,” and “Facebook.” Filters will target NACE 6311, EU/UK/Spain, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Access2Markets will quantify trade barrier impacts.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook OR ‘data processing’ OR ‘digital advertising’)” in the search field, select NACE 6311 datasets, and filter for EU/UK/Spain, 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Access2Markets for trade data. Save statistical reports.
**Findings**
Eurostat may provide Meta’s market share data, supporting TFEU claims and damages calculations ($100/user/year, per initial response). Trade impact data strengthens WTO claims, while regulatory inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s market data on Eurostat
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook OR ‘data processing’ OR ‘digital advertising’)” with NACE 6311, EU/UK/Spain, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes market share for TFEU claims, trade impacts for WTO claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://data.gov.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The data.gov.uk portal hosts UK government datasets, including regulatory enforcement and contract awards. The search tool supports keywords, organization filters (e.g., CMA, ICO), and data types (e.g., transparency data). Advanced syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for identifying enforcement gaps, supporting tort claims against regulators.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for CMA/ICO datasets on Meta’s competition or data protection violations, supporting tort claims for regulatory inaction and GDPR claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “CMA,” “ICO,” “competition,” and “data protection.” Filters will target CMA/ICO organizations, transparency data, and 2016–2025. Exact phrases like “abuse of dominance” will refine results.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (CMA OR ICO) AND (‘data protection’ OR competition)” in the search field, select CMA/ICO, transparency data, and 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK for violations. Save datasets.
**Findings**
Data.gov.uk may reveal CMA/ICO enforcement gaps, supporting tort claims for negligence, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Meta violation data strengthens GDPR claims, enhancing case value for funders like Harbour.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s regulatory data on data.gov.uk
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (CMA OR ICO) AND (‘data protection’ OR competition)” with CMA/ICO, transparency data, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes enforcement gaps for tort claims, violations for GDPR claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://violationtrackeruk.org/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
Violation Tracker UK, managed by Good Jobs First, provides a database of UK corporate regulatory penalties, with advanced search supporting filters for company (e.g., Meta), parent industry (e.g., technology), offence group (e.g., competition, consumer protection), offence type (e.g., anti-competitive practices), and penalty amount. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for competitor violation dossiers, supporting competition and consumer protection claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s UK violations, supporting competition (Competition Act 1998) and consumer protection claims (Consumer Protection Regulations 2008). Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “anti-competitive practices,” and “consumer protection.” Filters will target technology industry, competition/consumer offence groups, and penalties over £1 million, 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Companies House will map violations to entities.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘anti-competitive practices’ OR ‘consumer protection’)” in the search field, select technology industry, competition/consumer offences, penalty >£1 million, and 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Companies House. Save violation records.
**Findings**
Violation Tracker UK may reveal Meta’s penalties, supporting follow-on claims (e.g., post-2017 AEPD fine) and consumer protection claims for deceptive practices. Enforcement gaps strengthen tort claims, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf,” boosting case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s UK violations on Violation Tracker UK
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook) AND (‘anti-competitive practices’ OR ‘consumer protection’)” with technology, competition/consumer offences, penalty >£1 million, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes penalties for competition/consumer claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://catribunal.org.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) website provides a case database for UK competition law claims, including Section 47A (monetary claims) and Section 47B (collective proceedings). Filters include case type, status (current/archived), and respondent (e.g., CMA, private party). No advanced search syntax is specified, but “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) recommends it for tracking Meta litigation, like the Gormsen case, supporting competition claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta-related cases, including Gormsen, supporting Competition Act 1998 claims (Chapter I, II). Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “Gormsen,” and “abuse of dominance.” Filters will target Section 47B, CMA/private respondents, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with BAILII will identify precedents.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta OR Facebook OR Gormsen” in the case search, select Section 47B, CMA/private respondents, and 2016–2025. Cross-reference with BAILII for case documents. Save case details.
**Findings**
CAT likely includes Gormsen case updates, supporting competition claims. Precedents strengthen TFEU claims, while regulatory inaction supports tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s cases on CAT
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta OR Facebook OR Gormsen” with Section 47B, CMA/private respondents, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes Gormsen updates for competition claims, precedents for TFEU claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-markets-authority
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The CMA website provides case data, market studies, and guidance, with a search tool supporting keywords, case types (e.g., mergers, antitrust), and dates. Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for tracking Meta investigations and enforcement gaps.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for CMA cases or studies on Meta, supporting Competition Act 1998 claims and tort claims for inaction. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “digital advertising,” and “abuse of dominance.” Filters will target antitrust, mergers, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with Violation Tracker UK will confirm violations.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘abuse of dominance’)” in the search field, select antitrust/mergers, and 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Violation Tracker UK. Save case reports.
**Findings**
CMA may provide 2021 digital advertising study data, supporting competition claims, while inaction strengthens tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Evidence boosts case value for funders.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s CMA cases
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘digital advertising’ OR ‘abuse of dominance’)” with antitrust/mergers, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes digital advertising data for competition claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EC Competition Policy website provides antitrust, cartel, merger, and state aid case data, with a search tool supporting keywords, case types, and NACE codes. Syntax likely includes AND, OR, NOT, per similar EC platforms. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends it for Meta’s DMA and TFEU violations.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s DMA (Articles 5, 6) and TFEU (Articles 101, 102) cases, supporting follow-on claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “DMA,” “abuse of dominance,” and NACE 6311. Filters will target antitrust, mergers, and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with CURIA will confirm case status.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (DMA OR ‘abuse of dominance’)” with NACE 6311, antitrust/mergers, and 2016–2025. Cross-reference with CURIA. Save case documents.
**Findings**
The site may include Meta’s DMA investigations, supporting follow-on claims, and merger data for TFEU claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Inaction supports tort claims, enhancing case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s EC competition cases
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (DMA OR ‘abuse of dominance’)” with NACE 6311, antitrust/mergers, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes DMA/TFEU violations for follow-on claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 10: https://www.bailii.org/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The BAILII website provides UK and Ireland case law, with advanced search supporting Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), exact phrases, and proximity searches (e.g., term1 w/10 term2). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.2) recommends it for legal precedent, supporting competition and GDPR claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta-related cases, including Gormsen, supporting Competition Act 1998 and UK GDPR claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “Gormsen,” “abuse of dominance,” and “data protection.” Filters will target competition law and 2016–2025. Cross-referencing with CAT will confirm case status.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook OR Gormsen) AND (‘abuse of dominance’ OR ‘data protection’)” in the advanced search, select competition law, and 2016–2025. Use “Meta w/10 competition” for proximity. Cross-reference with CAT. Save judgments.
**Findings**
BAILII likely includes Gormsen case precedents, supporting competition and GDPR claims. Regulatory inaction strengthens tort claims, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” boosting case value.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s cases on BAILII
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook OR Gormsen) AND (‘abuse of dominance’ OR ‘data protection’)” with competition law, 2016–2025, “Meta w/10 competition.” Potential evidence includes precedents for competition/GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### Conclusion
The SEARCHLINKs offer significant potential for evidence collection, despite my inability to execute interactive searches. TRON, EC Trade, and Eurostat support WTO and TFEU claims by identifying trade barriers and market dominance. Data.gov.uk, Violation Tracker UK, CMA, and EC Competition Policy provide regulatory violation and inaction data for tort and competition claims. ShowVoc, CAT, and BAILII offer legislative and case law evidence for GDPR and competition claims. COCOO should implement the detailed search instructions, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions and Companies House, to maximize evidence and enhance case monetization with funders like Fortress or Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION.”
SEARCHLINK 1: https://www.opensanctions.org/advancedsearch/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The OpenSanctions advanced search page, managed by OpenSanctions Datenbanken GmbH, provides a multi-property matching tool to screen people and companies against global sanctions lists, politically exposed persons (PEPs), and entities of criminal or economic interest, with 1,971,383 entities across 286 data sources, updated daily as of June 24, 2025 (web:0, web:1). The tool supports searches by entity type (e.g., Legal Entity, Person, Company), name, nationality, country, and additional criteria like addresses via the /match API. Advanced features include fuzzy matching, transliteration, and result scoring, with a maximum of five results returned per query. The search uses Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) and allows filtering by topics (e.g., Sanctioned entity, PEP), data sources (e.g., US OFAC SDN), and countries. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends using OpenSanctions to screen Meta’s directors or shareholders for PEPs or sanctions, enhancing misrepresentation claims or public interest arguments under the UK’s National Security and Investment Act. The FAQ clarifies that the search API is not ideal for bulk screening but supports precise queries (web:12).
**Search Strategy**
To support the Meta case, I will screen Meta’s key personnel (e.g., directors, significant shareholders) for PEP or sanctions status, strengthening misrepresentation claims if ownership or control is obscured, and supporting tort claims against regulators for failing to scrutinize Meta’s corporate structure. Keywords will include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and names of known directors (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg) obtained from Companies House or OpenCorporates. Filters will target “Legal Entity” and “Person” types, UK and Spanish jurisdictions, and topics like “PEP” or “Sanctioned entity.” I will use fuzzy matching for name variations (e.g., “Zuckerberg” vs. “Zuckerburg”) and combine with “data processing” (NACE 6311) to focus on Meta’s sector. This aligns with “TI_ BORs.pdf” for identifying beneficial owners and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” for verifying ownership transparency.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the interactive interface requiring manual input. COCOO should access the advanced search page, enter “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR ‘Mark Zuckerberg’ OR ‘Sheryl Sandberg’) AND (UK OR Spain)” in the query field, select “Legal Entity” and “Person” as entity types, and filter for “PEP” or “Sanctioned entity” topics. Use fuzzy matching for name variations and add “data processing” as a keyword. Review the top five results for PEP/sanctions hits, noting source details (e.g., US OFAC SDN, EU sanctions). Cross-reference findings with OpenCorporates for corporate linkages, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” Protocol 2.1. Save results for evidence compilation.
**Findings**
OpenSanctions may reveal if Meta’s directors or shareholders are PEPs or sanctioned, supporting misrepresentation claims if they conceal beneficial ownership, as highlighted in “TI_ BORs.pdf” (e.g., Panama Papers case). Such findings could justify public interest challenges under the UK’s National Security and Investment Act, especially if linked to Meta’s data practices or acquisitions. Absence of hits may indicate regulatory oversight failures, supporting tort claims against CMA or CNMC for inaction, per “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.” Evidence of PEPs could enhance case value for sale to litigation funders like Fortress, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” (web:0).
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s personnel on OpenSanctions advanced search
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta Platforms OR Facebook OR ‘Mark Zuckerberg’ OR ‘Sheryl Sandberg’) AND (UK OR Spain)” with Legal Entity/Person types, PEP/Sanctioned entity topics, fuzzy matching. Potential evidence includes PEP/sanctions hits for misrepresentation claims, regulatory inaction for tort claims, enhancing case value for litigation sale.
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://www.opensanctions.org/docs/api/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The OpenSanctions API documentation page details programmatic access to its database of sanctions, PEPs, and persons of interest, supporting entity search and bulk matching via the /search and /match endpoints (web:12). The /search endpoint allows queries with parameters like “q” (search query text), “schema” (e.g., Person, Company), “limit” (result count), and “sort” (e.g., relevancy, first_seen:desc). It supports Boolean operators and complex searches (e.g., proximity, spelling variations). The /match endpoint, ideal for screening, uses fuzzy matching and additional criteria like nationality or address (web:8, web:13). The API is free for non-commercial use, with commercial licensing available (web:22). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) emphasizes OpenSanctions for due diligence, critical for misrepresentation and GDPR claims against Meta.
**Search Strategy**
I will use the API to screen Meta’s UK and Spanish entities and key personnel for sanctions or PEP status, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured and tort claims for regulatory inaction. The query will use “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” and director names (e.g., “Mark Zuckerberg”), with schema set to “LegalEntity” and “Person,” and filters for UK/Spain and NACE 6311. The /match endpoint will prioritize fuzzy matching for accuracy. This aligns with “TI_ BORs.pdf” for beneficial ownership transparency and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” for compliance verification.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute API calls without access to a configured environment. COCOO should set up an API key (contact info@opensanctions.org), then query the /match endpoint with: { “queries”: { “match”: { “schema”: “LegalEntity”, “properties”: { “name”: [“Meta Platforms”, “Facebook”], “country”: [“UK”, “ES”] } } } } and { “schema”: “Person”, “properties”: { “name”: [“Mark Zuckerberg”], “nationality”: [“US”] } }. Add “data processing” to refine results. Save JSON outputs and cross-reference with OpenCorporates for corporate structure data.
**Findings**
The API could identify PEP/sanctions statuses for Meta’s entities or directors, supporting misrepresentation claims if nominees hide beneficial owners. Such evidence strengthens public interest arguments and tort claims against regulators for oversight failures, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” API data enhances case credibility for sale to funders like Harbour, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” (web:8).
Search Performed: Planned API search for Meta’s entities/personnel on OpenSanctions
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to API access limitations. Recommended /match query: “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “Mark Zuckerberg” with LegalEntity/Person schema, UK/ES filters. Potential evidence includes PEP/sanctions data for misrepresentation, regulatory inaction for tort claims, boosting case value for funders.
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://www.opensanctions.org/docs/bulk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The OpenSanctions bulk data page offers downloadable datasets (JSON, CSV) for sanctions, PEPs, and persons of interest, updated daily, with 1,971,383 entities as of June 23, 2025 (web:1). It supports bulk screening for large-scale due diligence, with data structured in the FollowTheMoney model, integrating sources like US OFAC SDN and EU sanctions (web:4, web:14). No interactive search is provided, but datasets can be filtered offline by entity type, country, or topic. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) suggests using bulk data for comprehensive screening, ideal for misrepresentation and GDPR claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will use bulk data to screen Meta’s UK/Spanish entities and directors for PEP/sanctions status, supporting misrepresentation claims and tort claims against regulators. Filters will include “Meta,” “Facebook,” UK/ES countries, and NACE 6311, focusing on “PEP” and “Sanctioned entity” topics. This leverages “TI_ BORs.pdf” for ownership transparency and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” for compliance.
**Search Execution**
I cannot download or process datasets without access. COCOO should download the “default” dataset (JSON/CSV), filter for “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and director names (e.g., “Mark Zuckerberg”) using tools like Python or Excel, focusing on UK/ES and PEP/sanctions fields. Cross-reference with OpenCorporates for ownership data.
**Findings**
Bulk data may reveal PEP/sanctions hits for Meta’s personnel, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Regulatory inaction evidence strengthens tort claims, enhancing case value for funders like Certum, per “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” (web:1).
Search Performed: Planned bulk data screening for Meta on OpenSanctions
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to dataset access limitations. Recommended filtering “Meta,” “Facebook,” “Mark Zuckerberg” in UK/ES, PEP/sanctions fields. Potential evidence includes PEP/sanctions data for misrepresentation, inaction for tort claims, increasing case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://www.opensanctions.org/faq/150/downloading
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The OpenSanctions FAQ downloading page explains how to access bulk datasets or API for sanctions and PEP data, free for non-commercial use (web:5). It provides no interactive search but guides offline analysis of datasets, with daily updates and FollowTheMoney schema (web:4). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends this for due diligence, supporting misrepresentation claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will use the FAQ’s guidance to screen Meta’s entities and directors via bulk data, focusing on UK/Spain and PEP/sanctions status for misrepresentation and tort claims. Filters will target “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and NACE 6311, aligning with “TI_ BORs.pdf” and “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.”
**Search Execution**
I cannot download datasets. COCOO should follow FAQ instructions to download the “default” dataset, filter for “Meta,” “Facebook,” and directors in UK/ES, and check PEP/sanctions fields. Cross-reference with OpenCorporates.
**Findings**
Similar to SEARCHLINK 3, bulk data may reveal PEP/sanctions issues, supporting misrepresentation and tort claims, enhancing case value for funders (web:5).
Search Performed: Planned bulk data screening via OpenSanctions FAQ
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to dataset access limitations. Recommended filtering “Meta,” “Facebook” in UK/ES, PEP/sanctions fields. Potential evidence includes PEP/sanctions data for misrepresentation, inaction for tort claims, boosting case value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://globaltradealert.org/data-center
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Global Trade Alert (GTA) Data Center provides a database of trade policy measures, with filters for implementing/affected jurisdictions, intervention types (e.g., harmful, liberalizing), sectors, and dates. Advanced search supports keyword queries, but no specific syntax (e.g., Boolean) is detailed. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends GTA for identifying trade barriers (e.g., Meta’s data localization) for WTO dispute claims (GATT Article III.4).
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s data localization practices as harmful trade barriers, supporting WTO claims and TFEU Article 102 exclusionary conduct claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “data localization,” and “digital services,” with filters for EU/UK as affected jurisdictions, harmful interventions, and tech sector (NACE 6311), covering 2016–2025.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND data localization” in the query field, select EU/UK as affected jurisdictions, “harmful” intervention type, and tech sector, setting 2016–2025. Cross-reference with Access2Markets for trade flow impacts.
**Findings**
GTA may reveal Meta’s data practices as trade barriers, supporting WTO claims if linked to EU tech firm harms, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf.” This also bolsters TFEU claims against Meta’s exclusionary practices, increasing case value for mediation or sale.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s trade barriers on GTA Data Center
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND data localization” with EU/UK, harmful interventions, tech sector, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes trade barriers for WTO/TFEU claims, enhancing mediation value.
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/industries
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Mayer Brown industries page outlines legal services across sectors like technology, media, and telecommunications, but provides no search functionality. It discusses expertise in competition law, data protection, and public procurement, relevant to Meta’s case. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” does not reference this site, but its legal focus suggests reviewing Meta-related cases or advisories.
**Search Strategy**
I will explore Mayer Brown’s publications for Meta-related competition or GDPR cases, supporting abuse of dominance, GDPR, or consumer protection claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “GDPR,” “competition,” and “digital advertising.” Without a search tool, I will recommend browsing the technology sector section.
**Search Execution**
No search is possible due to lack of functionality. COCOO should browse the technology industry section for publications on Meta’s legal issues, focusing on competition or data protection advisories.
**Findings**
Mayer Brown’s expertise may yield insights into Meta’s legal challenges, supporting TFEU or GDPR claims, but lack of search limits evidence collection. COCOO should contact Mayer Brown for case studies.
Search Performed: Planned review of Mayer Brown industries page for Meta cases
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: No search functionality. Recommended browsing technology section for Meta-related competition/GDPR advisories. Potential evidence limited but may support TFEU/GDPR claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
Companies House’s advanced search page provides UK company data, including directors, shareholders, and filings, with filters for company name, number, status (active/inactive), SIC code, and officer name. It supports exact phrases and partial matches. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends using it to map Meta’s UK entities for GDPR and misrepresentation claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s UK entities (e.g., Meta Platforms UK) and directors, supporting GDPR (Articles 5, 9) and misrepresentation claims. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and SIC 6311, with officer searches for “Mark Zuckerberg.” Filters will target active companies and recent filings (2016–2025).
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” with SIC 6311, filter for active status, and search officer “Mark Zuckerberg.” Retrieve director/shareholder data and cross-reference with OpenSanctions.
**Findings**
Companies House likely provides Meta’s UK entity details, revealing nominees or PEPs, supporting misrepresentation claims, per “TI_ BORs.pdf.” Financial filings aid GDPR damages, while inaction supports tort claims.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s UK entities on Companies House
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” with SIC 6311, officer “Mark Zuckerberg,” active status. Potential evidence includes nominee/PEP data for misrepresentation, financials for GDPR damages, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: https://www.sede.registradores.org/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The Registradores de España portal provides access to Spanish company data, including legal representatives, directors, and financials, but requires login for detailed searches. No advanced search syntax is specified, but “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends it for mapping Meta’s Spanish entities.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s Spanish entities (e.g., Facebook Spain), supporting GDPR and misrepresentation claims. Keywords include “Facebook Spain,” “Meta Platforms,” and director names. Filters will target active companies and 2016–2025 filings.
**Search Execution**
I cannot access due to login requirements. COCOO should register, search “Facebook Spain” or “Meta Platforms,” and retrieve director/financial data, cross-referencing with OpenSanctions.
**Findings**
The portal may reveal Meta’s Spanish entity details, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is opaque, per “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.” Financial data aids GDPR damages, and inaction supports tort claims.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s Spanish entities on Registradores de España
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to login requirement. Recommended search: “Facebook Spain” or “Meta Platforms,” active companies, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes ownership data for misrepresentation, financials for GDPR damages, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The SEC EDGAR company search page provides access to US company filings (e.g., 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K), with searches by company name, CIK, or SIC code. No advanced syntax is specified, but “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends it for Meta’s financial and acquisition data.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s filings (CIK: 1326801, SIC 7370) to uncover undisclosed mergers or data practice disclosures, supporting TFEU and GDPR claims. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” “acquisition,” and “data protection,” focusing on 8-K Item 2/2.01 for 2016–2025.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms” or CIK 1326801, filter for 8-K, 10-K, 10-Q, and search “acquisition” or “data protection” within filings for 2016–2025. Cross-reference with “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” for undisclosed mergers.
**Findings**
EDGAR likely contains Meta’s 8-K filings, revealing acquisition details or data practices, supporting TFEU claims and GDPR damages, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Regulatory inaction evidence strengthens tort claims.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s filings on SEC EDGAR
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms” or CIK 1326801, 8-K/10-K/10-Q, “acquisition” or “data protection,” 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes acquisition/data details for TFEU/GDPR claims, inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 10: https://www.globalspec.com/search/products?categoryIds=5346
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The GlobalSpec search page for “Data Acquisition” products (category ID 5346) is unrelated to legal or corporate data, focusing on industrial hardware. No relevant search functionality exists for the Meta case.
**Search Strategy**
No strategy is viable due to irrelevance. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” does not reference this site, and it offers no legal or regulatory data.
**Search Execution**
No search is possible or necessary.
**Findings**
The site is irrelevant, providing no evidence for the Meta case.
Search Performed: Reviewed GlobalSpec data acquisition page
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Irrelevant to Meta case, no legal/corporate data. No evidence obtained.
—
### Conclusion
The SEARCHLINKs provide varied potential for evidence collection, despite my inability to execute interactive searches. OpenSanctions (SEARCHLINKs 1–4) offers PEP/sanctions screening for misrepresentation and tort claims, GTA (SEARCHLINK 5) supports WTO/TFEU claims, Companies House (SEARCHLINK 7), Registradores (SEARCHLINK 8), and SEC EDGAR (SEARCHLINK 9) provide corporate and financial data for GDPR and competition claims, while Mayer Brown (SEARCHLINK 6) and GlobalSpec (SEARCHLINK 10) offer limited or no value. COCOO should implement the outlined searches, cross-referencing with OpenCorporates and Violation Tracker UK, to bolster the Meta case and enhance its monetization potential.
### SEARCHLINK 1: https://www.publicsector.co.uk/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The website, Public Sector Network (PSN), is a comprehensive platform for UK public sector data, offering over 500 million data points on organizations from care homes to government departments. It supports public servants, suppliers, and citizens by providing organizational, structural, demographic, and contract-related data. Key features include searching for local service providers, elected representatives, and suppliers, with mapping and linkage capabilities. The platform allows registered users (free for public sector employees) to access detailed organizational profiles, publish articles, and explore tender opportunities. Advanced search functionality includes filtering by location (area, ward, constituency, region), organization type, and metrics like population covered or political control. The site also provides reports (e.g., Local Authority Political Analysis) and supplier directories, with recent updates like Social Housing Stock Bandings and Care Homes Analysis (web:15). No explicit advanced search syntax (e.g., Boolean operators) is detailed, but the site emphasizes dynamic filtering via search boxes and dropdowns, suggesting a user-driven interface for refining queries.
**Search Strategy**
The goal is to identify UK public sector contracts or relationships involving Meta, particularly in digital advertising or data services, to support tort claims against regulators (CMA, ICO) for failing to scrutinize Meta’s practices, and to uncover consumer protection violations (e.g., deceptive practices in public sector contracts). Given the causes of action, I will focus on abuse of dominance (Competition Act 1998, Chapter II) and consumer protection breaches (Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” recommends using public procurement portals like PSN to analyze past contract awards and incumbent weaknesses (Protocol 2.5). I will search for Meta’s contracts with government bodies, filter by organization type (e.g., central government, NHS), and examine supplier profiles for compliance issues. Keywords will include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “digital advertising,” “data services,” and “contract award” to uncover relevant engagements. If Meta is found as a supplier, I will check for violations using the “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” approach of cross-referencing with Violation Tracker UK.
**Search Execution**
I cannot directly execute searches on the PSN website due to its interactive interface requiring user registration and manual input, which is beyond my capabilities as an AI without real-time web access. Instead, I will outline the precise steps for COCOO to perform the search manually, ensuring alignment with the case’s objectives. On the PSN homepage, use the search bar to enter “Meta” or “Facebook” combined with “digital advertising” or “data services.” Apply filters for organization types (e.g., “Central Government,” “NHS”) and procurement stage (“Award”). Use the supplier directory to check if Meta is listed, filtering by “Contract-Intel” or “Digital” products (web:15). Cross-reference any findings with Violation Tracker UK for Meta’s compliance history (e.g., consumer protection or competition violations). If no direct Meta contracts appear, search for “advertising services” to identify competitors or proxies, then use organizational linkage data to trace relationships to Meta. Save results using PSN’s “saved searches” feature for ongoing monitoring.
**Findings**
Without direct access, I cannot confirm specific results, but PSN’s database likely contains contract awards or supplier profiles relevant to digital services, given its coverage of government suppliers (web:10). If Meta holds contracts, these could reveal reliance on its platforms for public sector advertising, supporting claims of market dominance or deceptive practices (e.g., inflated ad pricing). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” suggests analyzing incumbent weaknesses (e.g., compliance failures), which could bolster tort claims against the CMA for inaction if Meta’s contracts lack scrutiny. The absence of Meta in supplier lists could indicate undisclosed engagements, aligning with “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” findings of $2.3 trillion in unreported mergers, suggesting stealth consolidation in digital services. COCOO should register as a supplier to post events or articles exposing Meta’s practices, leveraging PSN’s platform to pressure regulators (web:18).
Search Performed: Attempted search for Meta/Facebook contracts on Public Sector Network (www.publicsector.co.uk)
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to registration requirement. Recommended manual search for “Meta,” “Facebook,” “digital advertising,” “data services” with filters for “Central Government,” “NHS,” and “Award” stage. Cross-reference supplier profiles with Violation Tracker UK for compliance issues. Potential evidence includes Meta’s public sector contracts supporting dominance claims or regulatory inaction for tort claims. Absence of Meta may suggest undisclosed engagements, aligning with stealth consolidation narrative.
—
### SEARCHLINK 2: https://www.gov.uk/search/advanced
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The GOV.UK advanced search page allows querying UK government publications, policies, and datasets, covering departments, agencies, and public bodies. It supports filters like keywords, publication type (e.g., policy papers, transparency data), organization, topic (e.g., business regulation, competition), and date range. Advanced search syntax includes exact phrases (quotes), AND/OR/NOT operators, and minus (-) to exclude terms. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” highlights GOV.UK as a key repository for identifying enforcement gaps (Protocol 2.3), crucial for tort claims against regulators like the CMA or ICO for failing to address Meta’s practices. The site’s data includes CMA investigation reports, ICO data protection rulings, and contract awards, relevant to competition and GDPR claims.
**Search Strategy**
To support the Meta case, I will search for CMA and ICO actions against Meta, focusing on competition law (abuse of dominance, anti-competitive agreements) and GDPR violations (unlawful data processing). Keywords will include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “CMA,” “ICO,” “competition,” “data protection,” “GDPR,” and “digital advertising.” Filters will target CMA and ICO as organizations, with publication types like “case decisions” or “enforcement actions” and topics like “competition” or “data protection.” The date range will span 2016–2025 to capture recent regulatory activity. I will use exact phrases (e.g., “abuse of dominant position”) and Boolean operators (e.g., Meta AND competition NOT Instagram) to refine results, aligning with “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” Protocol 2.3 for regulatory data mining.
**Search Execution**
I cannot directly perform the search due to the interactive nature of GOV.UK’s search interface. COCOO should access the advanced search page, enter “Meta OR Facebook AND (competition OR GDPR OR ‘data protection’)” in the keyword field, select “Competition and Markets Authority” and “Information Commissioner’s Office” under organizations, and filter for “case decisions,” “enforcement actions,” and “transparency data” under publication type. Set the date range to 2016–2025 and topic to “business regulation” or “competition.” Exclude “Instagram” or “WhatsApp” using the minus operator to focus on core Meta practices. Save results for review, cross-referencing with Violation Tracker UK for additional infringement evidence.
**Findings**
Without direct results, I rely on the documents and web context (web:23). GOV.UK likely hosts CMA reports on digital advertising (e.g., 2021 market study) and ICO rulings on Meta’s data practices, supporting the 2017 AEPD GDPR fine’s relevance to UK claims. Evidence of regulatory inaction (e.g., no CMA decision on Meta’s acquisitions) strengthens tort claims under common law for negligence. Contract awards to Meta for advertising services, if found, could indicate reliance on its dominant platform, supporting abuse of dominance claims. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” suggests using discrepancies between CMA’s stated priorities and enforcement actions to argue an enforcement gap, pressuring for investigations.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related regulatory actions on GOV.UK advanced search
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta OR Facebook AND (competition OR GDPR OR ‘data protection’)” with filters for CMA, ICO, case decisions, enforcement actions, 2016–2025, and competition topic. Potential evidence includes CMA/ICO reports on Meta’s digital advertising or data practices, supporting GDPR and competition claims. Regulatory inaction evidence strengthens tort claims for negligence. Contract awards may indicate dominance, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” undisclosed merger findings.
—
### SEARCHLINK 3: https://e-justice.europa.eu/advancedSearchManagement?action=advancedSearch
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The e-Justice Portal’s advanced search page provides access to EU legal documents, case law, and legislative texts across member states. It supports searches by keywords, document type (e.g., case law, legislation), jurisdiction (e.g., EU, Spain), and date. Advanced features include Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), phrase searches (quotes), and proximity searches (e.g., term1 NEAR/5 term2). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” recommends using this portal (via CURIA integration) for EU case law precedent (Protocol 2.2), critical for competition and GDPR claims against Meta. The portal’s scope includes CJEU and General Court rulings, relevant for tracking EC investigations or appeals.
**Search Strategy**
I will target CJEU/General Court rulings or EC decisions involving Meta, focusing on DMA violations (Articles 5, 6), GDPR breaches (Articles 5, 6, 9, 22), and anti-competitive practices (TFEU Articles 101, 102). Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “DMA,” “GDPR,” “abuse of dominance,” “data protection,” and “anti-competitive agreement.” Filters will include EU jurisdiction, case law document type, and 2016–2025 date range. Exact phrases like “abuse of dominant position” and proximity searches (e.g., “Meta NEAR/5 competition”) will refine results. This supports follow-on claims from EC findings and stand-alone claims for GDPR or competition breaches.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the portal’s interactive interface. COCOO should navigate to the advanced search page, enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘abuse of dominant position’ OR GDPR OR DMA OR ‘anti-competitive agreement’)” in the keyword field, select “case law” as document type, EU as jurisdiction, and 2016–2025 as the date range. Use proximity searches like “Meta NEAR/5 data protection” for precision. Save and review results for CJEU rulings or EC decisions, cross-referencing with “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” CURIA searches for precedent.
**Findings**
The portal likely contains EC investigation updates on Meta’s DMA compliance or GDPR fines, supporting follow-on claims if decisions confirm infringements. CJEU rulings on similar cases (e.g., Google’s abuse of dominance) provide precedent for TFEU Article 102 claims against Meta’s Marketplace tying or interoperability refusals. The “TI_ BORs.pdf” suggests Meta’s opaque corporate structures could hide beneficial owners, strengthening misrepresentation claims if linked to EU entities. Lack of recent Meta-specific rulings may indicate regulatory inaction, supporting tort claims against EC bodies, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta-related EU case law on e-Justice Portal
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘abuse of dominant position’ OR GDPR OR DMA OR ‘anti-competitive agreement’)” with case law filter, EU jurisdiction, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes EC DMA/GDPR decisions for follow-on claims, CJEU precedents for competition claims, and corporate opacity data for misrepresentation. Regulatory inaction supports tort claims against EC bodies.
—
### SEARCHLINK 4: https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/registers-business-insolvency-land/business-registers-search-company-eu_en
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The e-Justice Portal’s business registers search page connects to EU member state registries (e.g., Spain’s Registradores de España, UK’s Companies House) for company data, including ownership, directors, and financials. It supports searches by company name, registration number, and country, with no explicit advanced search syntax provided. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” recommends using such registries (Protocol 2.1) to map Meta’s corporate ecosystem, identifying beneficial owners for GDPR and misrepresentation claims. The “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” emphasizes verifying beneficial ownership to uncover opaque structures.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s EU entities (e.g., Meta Platforms Ireland) to identify directors, shareholders, or beneficial owners, supporting GDPR claims (Articles 5, 9) and misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured. Keywords include “Meta Platforms Ireland,” “Facebook Spain,” and registration numbers from OpenCorporates. Filters will target Spain and UK registries, focusing on director appointments and ownership changes. This aligns with “TI_ BORs.pdf” for tracing beneficial owners to expose potential sanctions or PEP issues.
**Search Execution**
I cannot access the portal’s search due to its interactive nature. COCOO should select Spain and UK registries, enter “Meta Platforms Ireland” or “Facebook” with known registration numbers (e.g., from OpenCorporates), and retrieve director lists, shareholder details, and financial filings. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions for PEP/sanctions screening, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” Protocol 2.4. Save results for evidence of opaque ownership.
**Findings**
The portal likely provides Meta’s EU entity data, revealing directors or nominees linked to complex ownership chains, supporting misrepresentation claims if beneficial owners are hidden (per “TI_ BORs.pdf”). Financial filings may show advertising revenue, aiding damages calculations for GDPR or competition claims ($100/user/year, per initial response). Lack of transparent ownership data strengthens arguments for regulatory inaction claims against CNMC or CMA, per “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s EU entities on e-Justice Business Registers
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms Ireland” or “Facebook” in Spain/UK registries, retrieving director/shareholder data. Potential evidence includes opaque ownership for misrepresentation claims, revenue data for damages, and PEP/sanctions issues via OpenSanctions. Regulatory inaction supports tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 5: https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/searchCaseInstruments
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EC Competition Case Search page provides access to EU antitrust, cartel, merger, and state aid cases. It supports filters by case type (e.g., antitrust, merger), company name, NACE code, case number, and status (ongoing/closed). No specific advanced search syntax is detailed, but “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.3) recommends filtering by NACE code and company name to identify Meta’s competition violations. This is critical for follow-on claims from EC decisions on DMA or TFEU breaches.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s antitrust and merger cases, targeting DMA (Articles 5, 6) and TFEU (Articles 101, 102) violations. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” and NACE code 6311 (data processing, hosting). Filters will include “antitrust,” “merger,” and ongoing/closed status for 2016–2025. This supports abuse of dominance and anti-competitive agreement claims, leveraging “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” for undisclosed merger evidence.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute the search due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta” or “Facebook” with NACE 6311, select “antitrust” and “merger” case types, and filter for 2016–2025. Review case summaries for DMA or TFEU findings, saving documents for follow-on claim evidence. Cross-reference with CURIA for appeals.
**Findings**
The portal likely includes Meta’s ongoing DMA investigations (e.g., Marketplace tying), supporting follow-on claims if decisions confirm violations. Merger cases (e.g., Instagram, WhatsApp) may reveal undisclosed deals, per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” strengthening TFEU Article 102 claims. Regulatory gaps in merger scrutiny support tort claims against EC bodies.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s EU competition cases
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta” or “Facebook” with NACE 6311, antitrust/merger types, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes DMA violation decisions for follow-on claims, undisclosed mergers for TFEU claims, and regulatory gaps for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 6: https://db-comp.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The URL is invalid or inaccessible, as “db-comp.eu” does not resolve to a functional website based on available information. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” does not reference this specific site, but its context suggests it may be a typo for an EC competition-related database (e.g., similar to the EC Competition Case Search). I will assume it intends a competition law database and adapt the strategy accordingly.
**Search Strategy**
Assuming a competition database, I will target Meta’s EU antitrust or merger cases, using keywords “Meta,” “Facebook,” “antitrust,” “merger,” and NACE 6311, with filters for 2016–2025. This supports DMA and TFEU claims, aligning with “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” Protocol 2.3.
**Search Execution**
The invalid URL prevents execution. COCOO should verify the correct URL or use the EC Competition Case Search instead, applying the strategy from SEARCHLINK 5. If a new database is found, enter “Meta AND (antitrust OR merger)” and filter by date and NACE code.
**Findings**
No findings are possible due to the invalid URL. COCOO should confirm the intended database or rely on the EC Competition Case Search results, which likely duplicate potential evidence (DMA violations, undisclosed mergers).
Search Performed: Attempted search on db-comp.eu
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Invalid URL, no access possible. Recommended using EC Competition Case Search with “Meta” and NACE 6311 for antitrust/merger cases. Potential evidence includes DMA/TFEU violations, but no new data due to inaccessibility.
—
### SEARCHLINK 7: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The EU’s Trade Policy page outlines trade agreements, barriers, and disputes, with Access2Markets and Trade Defence Portals for detailed data. No advanced search is directly available on the main page, but Access2Markets supports searches for trade barriers and tariffs. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.4) recommends using Access2Markets to identify trade barriers (e.g., data localization by Meta) for WTO dispute claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will search Access2Markets for trade barriers linked to Meta’s data practices, supporting a WTO dispute claim (GATT Article III.4). Keywords include “data localization,” “digital services,” “Meta,” and “Facebook.” Filters will target barriers affecting EU tech firms, focusing on 2016–2025. This aligns with “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” for USP-to-WTO strategy.
**Search Execution**
I cannot access Access2Markets’ interactive search. COCOO should navigate to Access2Markets, enter “data localization AND (Meta OR Facebook)” in the trade barriers search, and filter for tech sector barriers. Review results for evidence of Meta’s practices harming EU competitors, supporting WTO claims.
**Findings**
Access2Markets may reveal data localization barriers by Meta, supporting WTO claims if linked to specific harms (e.g., reduced EU tech exports). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” suggests quantifying impacts via trade flow data, strengthening USP proposals. This evidence could also support TFEU Article 102 claims if Meta’s practices exclude EU competitors.
Search Performed: Planned search on Access2Markets via EU Trade Policy page
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “data localization AND (Meta OR Facebook)” in trade barriers, tech sector, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes data localization barriers for WTO claims and TFEU exclusionary conduct claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 8: https://eu.itas.by.nation/
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
The URL is invalid, likely a typo for an EU or WTO-related trade database, as “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” references WTO trade disputes (Protocol 2.4). I will assume it intends a trade-related site like Global Trade Alert (GTA).
**Search Strategy**
Assuming GTA, I will search for Meta’s data practices as trade barriers (GATT Article III.4), using “Meta,” “Facebook,” “data localization,” and “digital services” with filters for harmful measures and tech sector. This supports WTO dispute claims.
**Search Execution**
The invalid URL prevents execution. COCOO should use GTA’s Data Center, entering “Meta AND data localization” with filters for harmful measures and tech sector. Cross-reference with Access2Markets for EU impacts.
**Findings**
No findings due to invalid URL. GTA could reveal Meta’s data practices as trade barriers, supporting WTO claims. COCOO should verify the URL or rely on Access2Markets results.
Search Performed: Attempted search on eu.itas.by.nation
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Invalid URL, no access possible. Recommended using Global Trade Alert with “Meta AND data localization” for harmful measures. Potential evidence includes trade barriers for WTO claims, but no new data due to inaccessibility.
—
### SEARCHLINK 9: https://www.investegate.co.uk/advanced-search
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
Investegate provides UK regulatory announcements (RNS) for listed companies, with advanced search supporting keywords, company name, EPIC/TIDM code, date range, and announcement categories (e.g., Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals). Syntax includes AND, OR, NOT, and exact phrases (quotes). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends searching for “Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals” and “Director’s Dealings” to detect stealth consolidation by Meta.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s UK-related acquisitions or director dealings, supporting undisclosed merger claims (per “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf”) and misrepresentation claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” “acquisition,” “minority stake,” and “strategic investment.” Filters will select “Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals” and 2016–2025. Exact phrases like “minority stake” and proximity searches (e.g., “Meta NEAR/5 acquisition”) will refine results.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘minority stake’ OR acquisition OR ‘strategic investment’)” in the keyword field, select “Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals,” and set 2016–2025. Review announcements for undisclosed Meta acquisitions, cross-referencing with OpenCorporates for ownership data.
**Findings**
Investegate likely contains RNS announcements of Meta’s acquisitions, potentially revealing undisclosed deals (e.g., below HSR thresholds), supporting TFEU Article 102 and tort claims. Director dealings may indicate insider activity linked to opaque ownership, per “TI_ BORs.pdf,” strengthening misrepresentation claims.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s RNS announcements on Investegate
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “(Meta OR Facebook) AND (‘minority stake’ OR acquisition OR ‘strategic investment’)” with Mergers, Acquisitions filter, 2016–2025. Potential evidence includes undisclosed acquisitions for TFEU and tort claims, director dealings for misrepresentation.
—
### SEARCHLINK 10: https://opencorporates.com/companies
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
OpenCorporates aggregates global company data across 140+ jurisdictions, offering searches by company name, jurisdiction, and officer name. Advanced search supports Boolean operators, exact phrases, and jurisdiction filters, with an API for automated queries. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) recommends mapping Meta’s corporate structure to identify beneficial owners or nominees, critical for GDPR and misrepresentation claims.
**Search Strategy**
I will search for Meta’s UK and Spanish entities (e.g., Meta Platforms Ireland, Facebook Spain), focusing on directors and beneficial owners to support GDPR (Articles 5, 9) and misrepresentation claims. Keywords include “Meta Platforms,” “Facebook,” and officer names from Companies House. Filters will target UK and Spain jurisdictions, with cross-referencing via OpenSanctions for PEPs.
**Search Execution**
I cannot execute due to the interactive interface. COCOO should enter “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” in the company search, filter for UK and Spain, and retrieve officer/shareholder data. Search officer names separately to map cross-company directorships, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf.” Use OpenSanctions for PEP screening.
**Findings**
OpenCorporates likely reveals Meta’s EU entities, identifying nominees or PEPs, supporting misrepresentation claims if ownership is obscured (per “TI_ BORs.pdf”). Financial data may aid damages calculations, while regulatory inaction evidence strengthens tort claims against CMA/CNMC.
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s entities on OpenCorporates Companies
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to interactive interface. Recommended search: “Meta Platforms OR Facebook” in UK/Spain, with officer searches. Potential evidence includes nominee/PEP data for misrepresentation, financials for damages, and inaction for tort claims.
—
### SEARCHLINK 11: https://opencorporates.com/registers
**Website Content and Advanced Search Rules**
OpenCorporates’ registers page lists 140+ global company registries, including Companies House (UK) and Registradores de España (Spain), with links to their search interfaces. No unified search is provided, but individual registries support advanced searches (e.g., Companies House uses SIC codes, officer names). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Protocol 2.1) emphasizes using registries to map Meta’s ecosystem.
**Search Strategy**
I will focus on UK (Companies House) and Spanish (Registradores de España) registries to identify Meta’s entities, directors, and beneficial owners, supporting GDPR and misrepresentation claims. Keywords include “Meta,” “Facebook,” and SIC 6311 (data processing). Filters will target active companies and director appointments.
**Search Execution**
I cannot access individual registries via this page. COCOO should access Companies House and Registradores de España, searching “Meta” or “Facebook” with SIC 6311, and retrieve director/ownership data. Cross-reference with OpenSanctions for PEPs, per “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf.”
**Findings**
Registries likely provide Meta’s entity details, revealing nominees or PEPs, supporting misrepresentation and GDPR claims. Financial filings aid damages calculations, while regulatory inaction evidence supports tort claims, per “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.”
Search Performed: Planned search for Meta’s entities via OpenCorporates Registers
Date: June 24, 2025
Findings: Unable to execute due to registry-specific interfaces. Recommended search: “Meta” or “Facebook” with SIC 6311 in Companies House/Registradores de España. Potential evidence includes nominee/PEP data for misrepresentation, financials for damages, and inaction for tort claims.
—
### Conclusion
Due to the interactive nature of the SEARCHLINK websites, I cannot execute searches directly but have provided detailed strategies for COCOO to perform them manually, aligning with the Meta case’s causes of action and infringement findings. The searches target evidence of Meta’s undisclosed mergers, GDPR violations, competition breaches, and opaque ownership, supporting claims and case monetization. PSN and GOV.UK searches may reveal public sector contracts or regulatory inaction, e-Justice and EC portals provide competition and GDPR case data, Access2Markets supports WTO claims, and OpenCorporates/Investegate uncover corporate structures and acquisitions. Invalid URLs (db-comp.eu, eu.itas.by.nation) require verification, but alternatives like GTA can substitute. COCOO should register on PSN, use Boolean/proximity searches on GOV.UK and e-Justice, and cross-reference findings with OpenSanctions and Violation Tracker UK to maximize evidence collection.
FOIS & COAS
To address your request for a list of findings of infringement that allow a follow-on claim and a list of possible causes of action in the context of the Meta case, as COCOO’s solicitor, I will draw on the provided documents, particularly focusing on the Spanish submissions, the Gormsen case, and regulatory frameworks like GDPR, DMA, and UK/EU competition law. The response will identify specific infringements by Meta that support follow-on claims (where a regulatory finding establishes liability, enabling private damages claims) and outline potential causes of action for both existing and prospective claims, tailored to the UK and Spanish jurisdictions. I will also integrate insights from the new documents (“HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION, USP AND MEDIATION PROJECTS.txt,” “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf,” “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.coredownload.pdf,” and “TI_ BORs.pdf”) to strengthen the analysis, ensuring no bullet points, numbering, or third-party links are used.
### Findings of Infringement Supporting Follow-On Claims
The documents provide evidence of regulatory findings against Meta that establish liability, enabling follow-on damages claims in the UK and Spain. In Spain, the AEPD’s 2017 decision fined Meta (then Facebook) €1.2 million for GDPR violations related to WhatsApp data sharing without valid user consent, involving unlawful processing of personal data for advertising purposes. This finding establishes a breach of GDPR Articles 5 and 6, allowing affected Spanish users (approximately 40 million) to pursue damages for unauthorized data use, particularly for emotional profiling and targeted advertising. The Spanish submission to the AEPD further alleges Meta’s use of biometric data and algorithmic bias, potentially breaching GDPR Articles 9 (special category data) and 22 (automated decision-making), which, if confirmed by a regulatory finding, would support additional follow-on claims. In the EU, the European Commission’s ongoing investigations into Meta’s practices under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) focus on anti-competitive tying of Facebook Marketplace and refusal of interoperability, potentially violating DMA Articles 5 and 6. A formal EC decision here would enable follow-on claims by affected businesses (e.g., Wallapop, Gumtree) for lost market opportunities. In the UK, while the Gormsen case has not yet secured a regulatory finding, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has investigated Meta’s digital advertising practices, with a 2021 report noting potential abuse of dominance, though no final infringement decision was issued. If the CMA issues a finding of abuse under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998, this would support follow-on claims by UK users (45 million) and advertisers for excessive pricing or unfair trading conditions. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” document highlights Meta’s potential non-disclosure of acquisitions (e.g., Instagram, WhatsApp), which, if confirmed by FTC or EC investigations as anti-competitive, could constitute infringements under EU Merger Regulation or UK Enterprise Act 2002, enabling claims by competitors harmed by market consolidation.
### Possible Causes of Action
Based on the documents and the Meta case’s context, COCOO can pursue multiple causes of action in the UK and Spain, leveraging competition law, data protection law, consumer protection law, and tortious claims. These are categorized into follow-on actions (stemming from regulatory findings) and stand-alone actions (requiring independent proof of harm).
**Competition Law Causes of Action**
Abuse of Dominant Position (UK: Competition Act 1998, Chapter II; EU/Spain: TFEU Article 102): The Spanish submission and Gormsen case allege Meta abused its dominance in social networking and online advertising by imposing unfair data requirements, tying Facebook Marketplace to its platform, and refusing interoperability with competitors. Claimants, including users and businesses (e.g., Spotify, Team17), can seek damages for excessive pricing (data as an “unfair price”) or exclusionary conduct harming competitors. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” suggests using Companies House and EC Competition Portals to gather evidence of Meta’s market share and exclusionary practices, strengthening claims. Anti-Competitive Agreements (UK: Competition Act 1998, Chapter I; EU/Spain: TFEU Article 101): The alleged Jedi Blue agreement with Google, cited in the Spanish submission, could constitute an illegal cartel to manipulate online advertising markets. If proven, advertisers (e.g., Havas, Unilever) could claim damages for inflated ad prices. Violation Tracker UK and EC Competition case searches can provide evidence of similar collusive behavior. Breach of DMA Obligations (EU/Spain): Meta’s non-compliance with DMA Articles 5 (self-preferencing) and 6 (interoperability) could support claims by competitors for lost revenue due to restricted market access. The EC’s ongoing probes, noted in the Spanish submission, provide a basis for monitoring potential infringement decisions.
**Data Protection Law Causes of Action**
GDPR Violations (EU/Spain: GDPR Articles 5, 6, 9, 22; UK: UK GDPR): The 2017 AEPD fine establishes Meta’s unlawful data processing, supporting claims for non-material damages (e.g., distress from privacy loss) by Spanish users. Allegations of biometric data misuse and emotional profiling, if substantiated through AEPD investigations, could extend claims to breaches of special category data processing and automated decision-making rules. In the UK, the Gormsen case’s focus on unfair data exploitation supports similar claims under UK GDPR, with “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” recommending BAILII and CAT searches for precedent cases on data misuse damages. The “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” and “TI_ BORs.pdf” highlight Meta’s potential use of opaque corporate structures to obscure data practices, enabling claims against beneficial owners if identified via OpenCorporates or OpenSanctions.
**Consumer Protection Law Causes of Action**
Unfair Commercial Practices (Spain: Ley de Competencia Desleal; UK: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008): Meta’s “free” model, where users pay with data, is alleged to be deceptive, misleading consumers about the true cost of services. Consumers can claim damages for loss of privacy or economic harm (e.g., targeted ads inflating costs). The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” suggests using Violation Tracker UK to identify patterns of consumer protection violations by Meta, supporting claims. Breach of Contract Terms (Spain: LDC; UK: Consumer Rights Act 2015): Meta’s Terms and Conditions, potentially void for violating public policy (e.g., mass surveillance), could allow users to claim damages for unenforceable contract terms or seek contract nullification. Spanish Registries and LSE News Explorer can provide evidence of Meta’s contractual practices.
**Tortious Causes of Action**
Negligence by Regulators (Spain: Law 40/2015; UK: Common Law): The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” evidence of $2.3 trillion in undisclosed mergers, including in business services, supports tort claims against CNMC, AEPD, or CMA for failing to investigate Meta’s acquisitions, causing harm to consumers and competitors. “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” recommends using GOV.UK and EC Competition Portals to document regulatory inaction. Misrepresentation (UK/Spain: Common Law): If Meta misrepresented its data practices or acquisition impacts to users or regulators, claimants could seek damages for reliance losses. The “TI_ BORs.pdf” case studies (e.g., Panama Papers) suggest searching SEC EDGAR and OpenSanctions for evidence of Meta’s opaque ownership structures to support misrepresentation claims.
**Strategic Causes of Action for Case Development**
Judicial Review (UK: Administrative Law; Spain: Ley de Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa): COCOO can challenge CMA or CNMC inaction on Meta’s practices, using “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” protocols to gather evidence from CAT and CURIA of regulatory failures. This could force investigations, strengthening follow-on claim prospects. WTO Trade Dispute (Global): The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” proposes using Global Trade Alert to identify Meta’s practices as trade barriers (e.g., data localization harming EU competitors), enabling COCOO to pitch a public-private partnership to a government for WTO litigation, potentially securing a public contract.
### Evidence Gathering and Filings to Search
To support these claims, COCOO should search specific filings using the “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” protocols. OpenCorporates and Companies House can map Meta’s corporate structure, identifying beneficial owners or nominee directors for GDPR and misrepresentation claims, leveraging “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf” and “TI_ BORs.pdf” for verification. SEC EDGAR (Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K Item 2/2.01) and LSE News Explorer (RNS announcements) can reveal Meta’s acquisition history and data practices, with “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” guiding searches for undisclosed mergers via Thomson/SDC and Compustat (AQC, IVACO variables). Violation Tracker UK and EC Competition Portals can document Meta’s regulatory infringements, supporting competition and consumer claims. CAT and BAILII searches for prior Meta litigation (e.g., Gormsen) provide precedent, while FOIA requests to the FTC for 2020 special order data can uncover unreported acquisitions. Spanish CNMC and AEPD databases should be queried for ongoing Meta investigations, with new complaints filed citing DMA and GDPR breaches. OpenSanctions can screen Meta’s directors for PEPs, bolstering public interest arguments.
### Leveraging for Case Assignment or Sale
The “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” document identifies firms like Fortress Investment Group, Harbour Litigation Funding, and Certum Group for outright claim purchase, offering immediate liquidity. COCOO should pitch the Meta case’s value (estimated $2–5 billion) based on the 2017 AEPD finding, potential DMA infringements, and undisclosed merger evidence, using data from Thomson/SDC and Compustat. Pre-litigation funding from Burford Capital or Omni Bridgeway can enhance evidence gathering, increasing claim value before sale. The “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” supports mediation by proposing COCOO as a neutral party to resolve disputes, securing contracts funded by regulators or Meta. Regulatory inaction claims, supported by “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” can pressure CMA/CNMC to act, enhancing the case’s appeal to buyers. “TI_ BORs.pdf” suggests using beneficial ownership data to expose Meta’s corporate opacity, increasing claim credibility for sale or mediation.
### Conclusion
The findings of infringement, including the 2017 AEPD GDPR fine and potential DMA violations, enable follow-on claims for millions of users and businesses in the UK and Spain. Causes of action span competition law (abuse of dominance, anti-competitive agreements, DMA breaches), data protection (GDPR violations), consumer protection (unfair practices, void contracts), and torts (negligence, misrepresentation). Strategic use of filings from OpenCorporates, SEC EDGAR, Thomson/SDC, and regulatory databases, guided by the documents, strengthens evidence for claims or case sales. By targeting litigation purchasers, securing pre-litigation funding, or mediating disputes, COCOO can monetize the case while advancing public interest goals.
THE 5 ATTACHMENTS
The new documents provided, “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION, USP AND MEDIATION PROJECTS.txt” and “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf,” offer critical insights into the legal finance market and the dynamics of merger disclosures, respectively. These documents enhance COCOO’s strategic position in the Meta case by providing avenues to monetize litigation assets, identify evidence of Meta’s anti-competitive practices, and navigate regulatory filings to strengthen claims or facilitate case assignment/sale before formal legal action. Below, I detail the extracted information from each document, its relevance to the Meta case, and actionable strategies for leveraging this information as COCOO’s solicitor.
—
### Extraction and Analysis of “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION, USP AND MEDIATION PROJECTS.txt”
**Extracted Information**:
This document outlines the global landscape of legal asset purchasers, focusing on firms that buy litigation claims, arbitration awards, and pre-litigation opportunities, distinct from traditional litigation funding. It differentiates between funding (non-recourse capital with shared proceeds) and outright purchase (transferring ownership for immediate liquidity). Key firms identified for outright purchase include Fortress Investment Group, Harbour Litigation Funding, Certum Group, and Bench Walk Advisors, with Burford Capital and Omni Bridgeway capable of large-scale monetization resembling purchases. Pre-litigation investment involves funding investigations, acquiring litigation-dependent assets (e.g., IP), or portfolio financing, with firms like AlphaLit specializing in claim origination. The secondary market for legal assets (e.g., trading fund stakes or bankruptcy claims) highlights the transferability of claims, with players like Ares Management involved. Regulatory scrutiny (e.g., UK’s PACCAR decision) and ethical concerns about third-party influence are noted, emphasizing the need for transparency and expert counsel in transactions.
**Relevance to the Meta Case**:
The document provides a roadmap for monetizing the Meta case before or during litigation, crucial for COCOO’s goal of generating revenue as a solicitor. The Meta case, involving collective actions for 45 million UK and 40 million Spanish users, plus businesses, is a high-value legal asset with potential damages in the billions. Selling or assigning this claim to a litigation purchaser could provide immediate liquidity, reducing COCOO’s financial risk while retaining a stake in future proceeds. The pre-litigation investment strategies align with COCOO’s current activities (e.g., Spanish submissions to CNMC, AEPD), allowing funding for evidence gathering or claim development. The secondary market suggests alternative exit strategies, such as selling stakes to institutional investors. Regulatory and ethical considerations underscore the need for careful structuring to avoid conflicts or disclosure issues, particularly in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
**Actionable Strategies**:
Engage firms like Fortress (opportunities@fortress.com) or Harbour (info@harbourlf.com) to explore outright purchase of the Meta claim, emphasizing its scale and evidence (e.g., Gormsen case parallels, Spanish filings). Pitch the claim’s value based on Meta’s advertising revenue ($100/user/year) and potential GDPR fines (up to 4% of annual revenue). For pre-litigation funding, approach Certum Group (info@certumgroup.com) or AlphaLit to finance further investigations into Meta’s data practices or algorithmic bias, enhancing claim strength before sale. Use portfolio financing with Burford or Omni Bridgeway to bundle the Meta case with other claims, diversifying risk for buyers. Ensure agreements comply with UK disclosure rules post-PACCAR, consulting specialized counsel (e.g., Seward & Kissel) to navigate confidentiality and control issues. Explore secondary market sales to investors like Ares if primary purchase negotiations stall, leveraging the Omni-Ares deal precedent.
**Why Extracted**:
The document directly addresses COCOO’s query about selling or assigning the case before legal action, identifying specific buyers and strategies. It provides contact details and service descriptions for firms, enabling targeted outreach. The distinction between funding and purchase clarifies options for immediate liquidity versus long-term litigation support, critical for COCOO’s financial strategy. Pre-litigation investment mechanisms support COCOO’s ongoing evidence-gathering efforts, while regulatory insights ensure compliance in structuring deals, particularly in the UK.
—
### Extraction and Analysis of “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf”
**Extracted Information**:
This working paper by Barrios and Wollmann examines how investor disclosures increase antitrust risk, leading firms to conceal “midnight mergers” to avoid scrutiny. Using a regression discontinuity design around the SEC’s 10% transaction-value-to-acquirer-assets threshold for Item 2 reports (Form 8-K), it finds a 34% increase in disclosures and an 11% drop in horizontal mergers at the threshold, indicating firms avoid disclosing anti-competitive deals. Undisclosed mergers totaled $2.3 trillion (77% of transactions) from 2002–2016, with significant activity in industries like health services and business services. The paper highlights regulatory gaps, as HSR Act exemptions (raised to $50 million in 2001, now over $92 million) allow many mergers to escape premerger notification. Data sources include Thomson/SDC for transaction-level data, WRDS for Item 2 reports, and Compustat for cash flow statements (ASC 230), which capture total merger values, enabling estimation of undisclosed deals. Recent policy changes (e.g., FTC’s 2020 orders, SEC’s 2021 disclosure reductions) reflect tensions between investor protection and antitrust enforcement.
**Relevance to the Meta Case**:
The paper directly supports COCOO’s claims against Meta for anti-competitive acquisitions (e.g., Instagram, WhatsApp), which may have been undisclosed “midnight mergers” to evade antitrust scrutiny. The $2.3 trillion in undisclosed mergers suggests Meta’s acquisitions could have bypassed HSR notifications, especially pre-2001 when thresholds were lower. The business services sector, including social media and advertising, ranks high in undisclosed merger value ($263.91 billion), implicating Meta’s market. The regression discontinuity evidence strengthens COCOO’s argument that Meta’s non-disclosure of acquisitions reflects intent to avoid antitrust detection, supporting tort claims against regulators for failing to investigate. Data sources (Thomson/SDC, WRDS, Compustat) provide a roadmap for uncovering evidence of Meta’s merger activities, while SEC and FTC tensions highlight opportunities to pressure regulators for investigations.
**Actionable Strategies**:
Search Thomson/SDC via Thomson One for Meta’s acquisitions from 2002–2016, filtering for deals under HSR thresholds ($50–92 million) and excluding those with public acquirer parents to identify undisclosed mergers. Access WRDS’s SEC Analytics Suite for Item 2 reports (Form 8-K, NITEM 2 or 2.01) to check if Meta filed disclosures for Instagram (2012) or WhatsApp (2014), noting the four-day post-closing filing requirement. Use Compustat’s “As First Reported” data (variables AQC, IVACO for cash flows) to estimate Meta’s total merger spending, identifying discrepancies with disclosed deals to infer stealth acquisitions. File Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the FTC for 2020 special order responses from Meta, which revealed over 1,000 unreported mergers. Submit complaints to Spain’s CNMC, citing the paper’s evidence of undisclosed mergers in business services, to trigger investigations into Meta’s acquisitions. Use these findings to bolster tort claims against regulators (e.g., CNMC, CMA) for inaction, referencing Spanish Law 40/2015. When selling the case, highlight undisclosed merger evidence to buyers like Fortress or Harbour, increasing the claim’s perceived value due to potential regulatory sanctions.
**Why Extracted**:
The paper provides empirical evidence of undisclosed mergers, directly relevant to Meta’s acquisition strategy and COCOO’s allegations of “killer acquisitions.” Its data sources and methodologies guide COCOO in digging out evidence from public and regulatory filings, critical for substantiating claims or enhancing case value before sale. The regulatory gap insights support tort claims against public bodies, while policy tensions offer leverage for advocacy with Spanish and UK authorities.
—
### Specific Filings to Search For
**Thomson/SDC (via Thomson One)**: Query all Meta acquisitions (2002–2016), focusing on non-HSR deals (<$92 million) in business services (SIC 73). Check for missing transaction values or cash proportions, correcting with “Final Consideration” or “Synopsis” fields. Match acquirer/target names to eliminate duplicates or stock buybacks.
**WRDS SEC Analytics Suite (Form 8-K)**: Retrieve Item 2/2.01 reports for Meta, focusing on 2012 (Instagram) and 2014 (WhatsApp) to verify disclosure compliance. Use historical company names from WRDS’s “Historical Company Names” to match Meta’s filings, ensuring no variants (e.g., Facebook Inc.) are missed.
**Compustat (S&P Capital IQ Snapshot)**: Extract Meta’s annual cash flow statements (variables AQC, IVACO, AT) to calculate total merger spending. Compare with Thomson/SDC disclosed values to estimate undisclosed merger activity, focusing on 2002–2016.
**FTC FOIA Requests**: Request Meta’s 2020 special order responses for acquisition data, emphasizing non-HSR deals. Cross-reference with Thomson/SDC to identify unreported transactions.
**Spanish CNMC and AEPD Filings**: Search CNMC’s public database for prior Meta investigations (e.g., WhatsApp 2017 case) and file new complaints citing undisclosed mergers and GDPR violations. Request AEPD’s records on Meta’s data practices to support biometric/emotional profiling claims.
**UK CMA and CAT Records**: Check CMA’s digital markets investigations for Meta-related filings. Search CAT’s database for Gormsen case updates, focusing on disclosure requirements post-PACCAR.
—
### Strategies for Assigning or Selling the Case Before Legal Action
**Outright Sale to Litigation Purchasers**: Approach Fortress, Harbour, or Certum with a detailed pitch, valuing the claim at $2–5 billion based on per-user damages ($50–100 for 45 million UK and 40 million Spanish users) and Meta’s $135 billion 2024 revenue for potential fines. Highlight evidence from Spanish submissions and undisclosed merger data to justify value. Negotiate for an upfront payment (e.g., 20–30% of estimated recovery) with a contingency share to maintain upside.
**Pre-Litigation Funding for Claim Development**: Secure funding from Burford or Omni Bridgeway to finance further evidence gathering (e.g., forensic data analysis, expert reports on algorithmic bias). Use funds to strengthen the claim before sale, targeting a higher valuation. Structure as portfolio financing to include other COCOO claims, reducing buyer risk.
**Secondary Market Sale**: If primary purchase stalls, explore secondary market sales via AxiaFunder’s bulletin board or Omni Bridgeway’s Ares deal model. Sell stakes to institutional investors, emphasizing the case’s scale and regulatory support (e.g., DMA, GDPR).
**Mediation as a Value-Add**: Propose COCOO as a mediator in parallel with sale discussions, using the case’s evidence to facilitate a global settlement with Meta, regulators, and claimants. Charge mediation fees ($1–10 million) while retaining a stake in any settlement, enhancing revenue.
**Due Diligence and Structuring**: Engage counsel (e.g., Chapman) to structure sale agreements, ensuring compliance with UK and EU disclosure rules. Conduct due diligence on buyers’ financial capacity and track record, using Chambers rankings to verify credibility.
—
### Conclusion
The documents provide a dual framework for COCOO to monetize the Meta case and strengthen its legal position. “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION” identifies key buyers and pre-litigation investment strategies, enabling COCOO to sell or fund the claim for immediate liquidity or enhanced value. “MA DISCLOSURES” offers empirical evidence of Meta’s potential undisclosed mergers, guiding COCOO to specific filings (Thomson/SDC, WRDS, Compustat, FTC) to uncover evidence and bolster claims against Meta and regulators. By combining litigation sales, funding, mediation, and regulatory advocacy, COCOO can maximize revenue while advancing its mission to hold Meta accountable.
Key Insights from the Documents
1. **Multi-Jurisdictional Relevance and Legal Theories**:
– The documents highlight Meta’s alleged abuses across three jurisdictions (Spain, UK, and EU), focusing on:
– **Abuse of Dominant Position**: Meta’s practices, such as tying Facebook Marketplace to its social network, imposing unfair data requirements, and refusing interoperability, are framed as violations under Spain’s Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (LDC) and the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).
– **Data Protection Violations**: Meta’s handling of biometric data, emotional profiling, and data integration across platforms (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) without valid consent potentially breaches the GDPR and Spain’s LOPDGDD.
– **Consumer Exploitation**: The “free” model, where users pay with data, is challenged as an unfair price under competition law and a deceptive practice under consumer protection laws (e.g., Spain’s Ley de Competencia Desleal, LCD).
– **Exclusionary Conduct**: Meta’s acquisitions (e.g., Instagram, WhatsApp) and restrictions on third-party developers create a “kill zone” for competitors, stifling innovation.
– The Gormsen case in the UK provides a precedent for challenging Meta’s data-driven business model as an exploitative abuse, though its initial certification failure underscores the need for a robust damages methodology.
– COCOO’s Spanish submissions to the CNMC, AEPD, and Ministry of Economic Affairs mirror Gormsen’s arguments but expand into new areas like algorithmic bias and biometric data misuse, offering novel legal theories.
2. **Identified Victims and Markets**:
– **Consumers**: Approximately 40 million Spanish users and 45 million UK users of Meta’s platforms (2016–2019) are potential claimants, harmed by excessive data collection and loss of privacy.
– **Businesses**: Competitors in online classifieds (e.g., Wallapop, Milanuncios, Gumtree, eBay), web analytics (e.g., MARKETZILLA, Databuzz), and content creation (e.g., Spotify, Team17) face exclusionary practices. Advertisers (e.g., Havas, Unilever) pay inflated prices due to Meta’s market dominance.
– **Public Sector**: Governments (e.g., UK, Spain, US, Australia) contracting with Meta for advertising may be complicit in enabling data-driven abuses, opening avenues for claims against regulatory inaction.
3. **Regulatory Gaps and Opportunities**:
– In Spain, the CNMC has not proactively addressed Meta’s interoperability or exclusionary practices, and the AEPD has focused narrowly on specific GDPR violations (e.g., 2017 WhatsApp fine). This creates opportunities for COCOO to push for investigations and sanctions.
– The EU’s DMA and DSA provide new regulatory tools, but their implementation is nascent, allowing COCOO to offer expertise in enforcement.
– The UK’s CMA and ICO are actively investigating digital markets, creating demand for specialized consulting services.
4. **Contractual Vulnerabilities**:
– Meta’s Terms and Conditions may be void for violating public policy (e.g., mass surveillance, lack of informed consent). Contracts with advertisers and governments relying on illegally obtained data are also vulnerable, strengthening claims for damages or contract nullification.
– Alleged collusive agreements (e.g., Jedi Blue) are illegal per se, offering grounds for litigation or mediation.
5. **COCOO’s Strategic Positioning**:
– COCOO’s UK registration and expertise in competition and consumer law position it to act transnationally, particularly for British citizens in Spain (293,171 residents).
– The “no win, no fee” offer to Gormsen’s legal team demonstrates a low-risk, high-reward model for engaging in high-stakes litigation.
– COCOO’s campaign for collective redress targets a broad class of victims, enhancing its leverage in negotiations with Meta.
### Strategies to Monetize the Meta Case as COCOO Solicitor
To maximize revenue, COCOO can pursue a combination of litigation, consulting, mediation, and advocacy, leveraging its unique position as a competition and consumer rights expert. Below are specific strategies:
#### 1. Lead or Support Collective Actions
– **UK Collective Action (Gormsen Case)**:
– **Action**: Continue offering consulting services to Gormsen’s legal team (Monckton Chambers, Quinn Emanuel) on a “no win, no fee” basis. Focus on strengthening the damages methodology, addressing the CAT’s concerns about the Pro-Sys test.
– **Revenue Potential**: If successful, COCOO could earn a contingency fee (e.g., 10–20% of damages or settlement, potentially billions given 45 million claimants). Even a modest per-user payout (e.g., £50–100) could yield £2.25–4.5 billion in total damages.
– **Tactics**:
– Develop a refined economic model for “unfair price” damages, incorporating two-sided market dynamics and valuing user data based on Meta’s advertising revenue (e.g., $100/user/year).
– Provide evidence of algorithmic bias and emotional profiling to bolster “unfair trading conditions” claims.
– Engage expert economists and data scientists to meet the CAT’s certification requirements.
– **Spanish Collective Action**:
– **Action**: Initiate a parallel collective action in Spain, representing 40 million users and affected businesses (e.g., Wallapop, advertisers like LOLA MullenLowe). Use the AMI lawsuit as a precedent but expand to include novel claims (e.g., algorithmic bias, biometric data misuse).
– **Revenue Potential**: Similar to the UK, a successful claim could yield substantial damages, with COCOO earning contingency fees or funding from litigation financiers (e.g., 20–30% of recovery).
– **Tactics**:
– Partner with Spanish law firms specializing in competition law (e.g., Garrigues, Cuatrecasas) to file claims under LDC and LCD.
– Recruit claimants via the compensation campaign, emphasizing no upfront costs to users or businesses.
– Leverage GDPR violations (e.g., lack of consent for data integration) to seek per-user damages for privacy breaches.
– **EU-Wide Class Action**:
– **Action**: Coordinate with consumer organizations across the EU (e.g., BEUC) to file a multi-jurisdictional claim, targeting Meta’s GDPR and DMA violations.
– **Revenue Potential**: A pan-European action could involve hundreds of millions of users, with potential damages in the tens of billions, yielding significant fees for COCOO.
– **Tactics**:
– Use the Gormsen case and Spanish submissions as templates to argue common harm across jurisdictions.
– Secure litigation funding from firms like Burford Capital or Therium to cover costs, sharing proceeds upon success.
#### 2. Secure Public Sector Consulting Contracts
– **UK Opportunities**:
– **CMA Framework Agreement**: Bid for the CMA’s “Framework Agreement for Economic and Strategic Consultancy” (e.g., CMA035/2024). Offer COCOO’s analysis of Meta’s two-sided market abuses and exclusionary practices.
– **Revenue Potential**: Contracts worth £1–5 million, with potential for recurring engagements.
– **Tactics**: Highlight COCOO’s Gormsen case analysis and Spanish submissions to demonstrate expertise in digital market regulation.
– **DSIT AI Research**: Bid for DSIT contracts like “Research on Social Impacts of Large-Scale AI Models” (e.g., DSIT/AI/2025/001). Provide evidence of Meta’s algorithmic bias and emotional profiling.
– **Revenue Potential**: £500,000–£2 million per contract.
– **Tactics**: Emphasize real-world data from Meta’s practices to inform AI ethics frameworks.
– **ICO Legal Services**: Bid for ICO’s Legal Services Framework (e.g., ICO/LEG/2025/LSF). Offer forensic analysis of Meta’s GDPR violations.
– **Revenue Potential**: £200,000–£1 million per contract.
– **Tactics**: Partner with UK law firms or consultancies to enhance bid credibility.
– **EU Opportunities**:
– **DG CNECT DMA Support**: Bid for DG CNECT’s contract for “Support to DMA Implementation” (e.g., CNECT/2024/LUX/R/0025). Provide practical insights from Meta case studies.
– **Revenue Potential**: €1–10 million per contract.
– **Tactics**: Position COCOO as a leader in gatekeeper compliance analysis, using Spanish submissions as evidence.
– **DG COMP Economic Studies**: Bid for DG COMP’s “Economic Studies on Competition Policy” (e.g., COMP/2023/OP/0015). Offer models of Meta’s “unfair price” abuse.
– **Revenue Potential**: €500,000–€5 million.
– **Tactics**: Leverage COCOO’s two-sided market expertise to differentiate from generalist consultancies.
– **EDPS Data Protection Consultancy**: Bid for EDPS contracts (e.g., EDPS/2024/05-03). Focus on Meta’s GDPR violations in biometric and emotional data.
– **Revenue Potential**: €200,000–€2 million.
– **Tactics**: Highlight COCOO’s Spanish AEPD complaint to demonstrate specialized knowledge.
– **Spanish Opportunities**:
– **Ministry of Economic Affairs**: Bid for contracts on DSA/DMA implementation (e.g., “Technical Assistance for DSA Deployment”). Offer practical solutions based on Meta case analysis.
– **Revenue Potential**: €500,000–€3 million.
– **Tactics**: Use Spanish submissions to showcase COCOO’s expertise in local regulatory needs.
– **AI Ethics Framework**: Bid for contracts like “Ethical Framework for AI” to address Meta’s algorithmic harms.
– **Revenue Potential**: €300,000–€1.5 million.
– **Tactics**: Provide evidence of Meta’s emotional profiling to support ethical AI guidelines.
– **RGPD Audits**: Bid for RGPD compliance audits, emphasizing Meta’s systemic violations.
– **Revenue Potential**: €100,000–€500,000 per contract.
– **Tactics**: Partner with Spanish consultancies to enhance local credibility.
#### 3. Position COCOO as a Mediator
– **Action**: Propose a global mediation process to resolve Meta disputes, involving consumers, businesses, regulators, and Meta. Pitch to UK (CMA, CAT), Spanish (CNMC, Ministry), and EU (DG CNECT, DG COMP) authorities.
– **Revenue Potential**: Mediation fees could range from €1–10 million, depending on the scale of the settlement, plus reputational gains for future contracts.
– **Tactics**:
– Highlight COCOO’s comprehensive understanding of Meta’s practices, victim classes, and regulatory gaps.
– Propose a structured mediation framework, including governments (UK, Spain, US, Australia), advertisers (e.g., Unilever, Amazon), and competitors (e.g., Wallapop, Spotify).
– Offer to facilitate settlements that include user compensation, advertiser rebates, and interoperability commitments from Meta.
– Leverage COCOO’s neutrality as a UK-based entity to appeal to transatlantic stakeholders.
#### 4. Build a Compensation Campaign
– **Action**: Expand the “Join Our Compensation Campaign” initiative to recruit claimants in the UK, Spain, and EU. Use digital marketing and partnerships with consumer groups to scale participation.
– **Revenue Potential**: Contingency fees from settlements or damages (e.g., 10–20% of payouts to millions of users and businesses).
– **Tactics**:
– Develop a user-friendly online portal for claimants to register, emphasizing no upfront costs.
– Partner with media outlets and influencers to amplify campaign visibility.
– Target specific victim groups: users (via social media ads), advertisers (via industry associations), and competitors (via trade bodies like DEV in Spain).
– Use campaign data to strengthen legal claims and mediation proposals.
#### 5. Pursue Claims Against Public Sector and Collaborators
– **Action**: Explore tort claims against public sector bodies (e.g., CNMC, AEPD, UK CMA) for regulatory inaction, and joint liability claims against consultancies (e.g., firms advising on Meta’s mergers) and colluding tech firms (e.g., Google in Jedi Blue).
– **Revenue Potential**: Damages from public sector or consultancy claims could yield millions, though litigation is high-risk. Settlements could also generate fees.
– **Tactics**:
– File strategic claims under Spanish Law 40/2015 for state liability due to regulatory inaction.
– Target consultancies that provided negligent merger advice, using discovery to access their reports.
– Include Google in claims related to Jedi Blue, leveraging US and EU precedents.
– Use these claims to pressure regulators into supporting COCOO’s mediation proposal.
#### 6. Strategic Partnerships and Subcontracting
– **Action**: Partner with established consultancies (e.g., Deloitte, Clifford Chance) or law firms to bid for public sector contracts or support litigation.
– **Revenue Potential**: Subcontracting fees (e.g., 20–50% of contract value) or shared litigation proceeds.
– **Tactics**:
– Approach firms already on UK CCS or EU frameworks, offering COCOO’s Meta expertise as a niche add-on.
– Collaborate with Spanish firms to localize bids and litigation efforts.
– Negotiate revenue-sharing agreements to minimize upfront costs.
### Recommended Approach
To maximize revenue while managing risk, I recommend a phased strategy:
1. **Short-Term (0–6 Months)**:
– Enhance the Gormsen case by providing consulting services to refine damages methodology.
– Launch the Spanish collective action, partnering with local law firms and litigation funders.
– Bid for immediate UK and Spanish contracts (e.g., CMA, Ministry DSA/DMA tenders).
– Scale the compensation campaign to recruit claimants, focusing on digital marketing.
2. **Medium-Term (6–18 Months)**:
– Bid for EU contracts (DG CNECT, DG COMP, EDPS) to establish COCOO as a leading digital markets consultant.
– Propose mediation to UK, Spanish, and EU authorities, leveraging campaign data and legal filings.
– Explore tort claims against regulators and consultancies, using them to pressure for mediation.
3. **Long-Term (18+ Months)**:
– Expand the collective action to other EU countries, coordinating with consumer groups.
– Secure recurring public sector contracts by demonstrating successful outcomes in Meta-related work.
– Position COCOO as a global mediator for tech disputes, building on the Meta case success.
### Risks and Mitigation
– **Risk**: High litigation costs and uncertainty in collective actions.
– **Mitigation**: Use “no win, no fee” models and secure litigation funding.
– **Risk**: Competition from larger consultancies in public sector bids.
– **Mitigation**: Emphasize COCOO’s unique Meta expertise and partner with established firms.
– **Risk**: Resistance from Meta or regulators to mediation.
– **Mitigation**: Build a broad coalition of claimants and stakeholders to increase pressure.
### Conclusion
As COCOO’s solicitor, the Meta case offers substantial revenue opportunities through litigation, consulting, mediation, and advocacy. By leading collective actions, securing public sector contracts, and positioning COCOO as a mediator, you can generate millions in fees while establishing the organization as a leader in digital market regulation. The key is to leverage COCOO’s specialized knowledge, build strategic partnerships, and scale the compensation campaign to maximize claimant participation and regulatory impact.