Gary is right to remark on the weirdness of HBS criticizing the 2017 AA bag fee class action. They claimed this created reputational risk. But 1) everyone hates bag fees, and 2) bag fee ERRORS have to be especially unpopular. Ultimately I was vindicated -- case got >100% refunds

Interactive AI explainer, in NotebookLM, is trained on the key documents. Try asking “What does Edelman say the FRB did wrong?” or “Did the FRB provide Edelman with the evidence gathered?” https://t.co/eeZaLvLXEa (11/11)

Video explainer offers highlights of these concerns, grounded in primary source documents. https://t.co/XCfeK4R1Y4 (10/11)

1000+ pages of evidence newly posted, including letters evaluating my candidacy, FRB reports about me, my reply, and countless internal discussions. (9/11)

HBS leaders deleted key emails and notes as litigation loomed. Spring 2018: Associate Dean emailed Dean Nohria that I was “seriously considering suing.” Yet just a few months later, he wiped his tablet containing key notes preserved nowhere else. https://t.co/1Bdm8S0RAb (8/11)

FRB held me to a higher standard than other faculty. HBS’s self-proclaimed chief compliance officer: “one could interpret the selective enforcement of our community standards on a single candidate as discriminatory.” No kidding! https://t.co/SPKXOG0GD1 (7/11)

In FRB’s first meeting in 2017, members had already made up their mind. One member said he was “seething” and found me “irredeemable.” Chair said: “obvious that we shouldn’t have him on the senior faculty.” All before collecting any evidence. https://t.co/SPKXOG0GD1 (6/11)

Rules require the FRB to “investigate” and reach “conclusions.” Yet page one of the FRB’s report stated: “this process was not an investigation, and we did not seek to pass judgment.” That’s obviously outside the rules. https://t.co/1LBRUJaaIV (5/11)

Rules say an FRB must begin by sending faculty member an “allegation.” Harvard witnesses admit that the FRB did not. Months later, they devised an allegation, but didn’t send it to me. And expanding in a rush, they made outrageous mistakes. https://t.co/1LBRUJaaIV (4/11)

Rules say HBS had to give me “the evidence gathered.” It did not. Interviewed witnesses, took notes, but didn’t share them. Made artful excerpts to change meaning. And two “quotes” in the report are not in the underlying notes. Fabrication! https://t.co/J2xAwGF5T4 (3/11)

Harvard claims FRB rules were just “guidance,” not binding. But multiple factors indicate policy was contractual: Mandatory language (“will”). When the FRB chair disliked a rule, she complained--but complied. HBS's policy promise should be honored. https://t.co/MlwlARY6jE (2/11)

Today I posted Summary Judgment briefs and exhibits for Edelman v. Harvard. 1000+ pages of exhibits. Overall, these show the HBS “Faculty Review Board” not following the governing procedures, and not seriously trying. https://t.co/HjWz1lvHa3 (1/11)

Surprised that it took Honey two weeks. Of course it looks guilty to turn this off. But they ARE guilty, caught red-handed. Only path forward is to admit this was wrong, pay a penalty (pay networks for increased monitoring costs going forward?), and apologize. Litigation!

This morning Rakuten Advertising kicked Honey out of its network due to its stand-down violations and concealment of intentional-non-stand-down.

This thread offers deep insight about the functioning of complex organizations under stress. I am no scholar of organizational structure, but reading this made me want to learn more. @arampell time to write a book!

VPT announced today that it has 400+ automated videos of Honey stand-down violations, as to 100+ merchants. Self-service dashboard organizes these, violations by other shopping plugins, and adware too. The affiliate industry CAN fix this mess. https://t.co/tiei0EiC2F

@megalag Another gem in the amended complaint: Rakuten has repeatedly complained about Honey violating R stand-down policies. See extended redacted text on p 62-63, with 17 citations to docs produced by R. This is third-party production, yes, but should be unsealed.

Amended complaint in PayPal Honey browser extension litigation. Looks like lawyers have been reading my site and watching @megalag's videos. Full complaint at https://t.co/UZrTPUyGAd

It was a pleasure to work with @megalag on this research. https://t.co/JdFhGNyFQQ . I've tested a lot of nasty code over the years, but hiding from testers -- by reading other sites' cookies -- is in a class by itself.

In 2017, @honey engineered a “defeat device” to detect industry insiders and compliance testers. This was used to poach commissions from creators while avoiding detection. Strikingly similar to the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal. See the evidence for yourself in the full video