To be honest, I think it's great that light is being shone on these internal documents, but I have yet to hear any big revelations in these leaks, so I don't really understand why she would be eligible for a payout. I mean, they mostly say that Facebook is bad for societal discourse and bad for personal well-being. Color me shocked.
I haven't seen any evidence, for example, that Facebook tried to cover anything up. They just paid some people to do a bunch of research, which they then did nothing about because it would have had a negative impact on their bottom line. Literally every large company does this.
Don't get me wrong, I think Facebook is a horrible company and could very well be the downfall of society, but I just don't think that was a secret, and nothing in these reports makes me think any differently.
Under what whistleblower statute? There are various statutes that provide different percentages, but there are strict rules for qualification.
I haven't seen any indication that she is a qualifying whistleblower under any statute (though admittedly I am not deeply following these revelations).
update: sounds like these disclosures were made to the SEC under the Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections, which could yield 10-30 percent of the amount collected by the SEC.
The theory of the case is that FB is misleading investors by not disclosing this material information.
Well that certainly changes our perception of her motivations. She claims to care about making social media better but probably just wants an easy payout.
