
France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax - ComodoHacker
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-amf-bloomberg/frances-amf-watchdog-fines-bloomberg-5-million-over-vinci-hoax-idUSKBN1YK1VN
======
danso
Here's a non-paywalled version via Reuters (who, it should be said, is a
Bloomberg competitor in the financial news space):
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-amf-
bloomberg/fran...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-amf-
bloomberg/frances-amf-watchdog-fines-bloomberg-5-million-over-vinci-hoax-
idUSKBN1YK1VN)

Here's a more in-depth explanation from 2017 (the incident happened in 2016):
[https://www.complianceweek.com/the-vinci-code-fake-news-
pres...](https://www.complianceweek.com/the-vinci-code-fake-news-press-
releases/9877.article)

~~~
dang
We've changed to the Reuters article from
[https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/bloomberg-lp-
fi...](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/bloomberg-lp-
fined-5-6-million-in-french-case-over-hoax-release). Thanks!

------
wheybags
My trust of bloomberg has been pretty low since the spy chip story, that seems
to have been just a hoax.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-
big-h...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-
china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies)

~~~
privateprofile
Any guesses to why aren't Super Micro or other affected parties taking legal
action, if it was a hoax like what's reported in this case?

~~~
smabie
If Super Micro knows they didn’t do it, they should absolutely love the story.
Buyback the underpriced shares and make a ton of free money once the market
realized the Bloomberg story is false. I don’t know if they actually did that,
but that’s what I would have done. I didn’t actually do that because I trusted
Bloomberg a lot. But there was substantial profit to be made as an insider. I
bet many/most employees made that trade, at the very least.

~~~
jfries
Would that be legal, or counted as insider trading? Since you're trading on
relevant information not available to the public.

~~~
jrhurst
I assume if the company publicly denied the accusations it would not be
considered insider trading

------
danso
Here's an article from 2016 that seems to contemporaneously describe the
incident at hand:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20161123142234/https://www.bloom...](https://web.archive.org/web/20161123142234/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/vinci-
says-builder-isn-t-revising-acccounts-cfo-isn-t-fired)

> _Vinci SA fell victim to a fake release claiming the French builder had
> fired its finance chief amid accounting irregularities, prompting the stock
> to plunge before the company denied the report._

> _Bloomberg News was among the few news organizations to report from the
> false statement._

> _“We are a victim of a hoax,” spokesman Paul-Alexis Bouquet said on Tuesday,
> denying that the Paris-based company had released any statement. Although
> the company’s website hadn’t been hacked, technically speaking, fake
> statements had been sent in the company’s name, he said._

> _Investors were caught off guard after the publication of a release saying
> that Vinci had discovered an accounting error and had fired Chief Financial
> Officer Christian Labeyrie. The shares plunged 18 percent, the most in more
> than 17 years, before Bouquet said the report was false. Vinci will file a
> complaint about the incident, the spokesman said._

~~~
La1n
> “We are a victim of a hoax,” Vinci was the victim of a hoax, Bloomberg was
> happy to report it without doing enough fact checking, they were spreading
> and part of the hoax.

~~~
danso
If the Vinci website itself had been hacked, and the faux press release
distributed from there, Bloomberg would obviously have a strong case. That
doesn't seem to be the situation though, and so I'm curious to what channel
this fake press release came through, e.g. a spoof email or Twitter account.

~~~
etage3
Bloomberg received a release from vinci.group instead of vinci.com according
to Le Monde's article.
[https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/12/16/l-agence-...](https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/12/16/l-agence-
de-presse-bloomberg-sanctionnee-pour-avoir-diffuse-de-fausses-nouvelles-a-la-
bourse-de-paris_6023101_3234.html)

------
Scoundreller
Isn’t Vinci SA the operator of all those French toll highways that were
supposed to be free once construction was paid off, but continued to be tolled
anyway?

~~~
delouvois
Yes, it is. They got a good deal at our expenses following these outrageous
privatisation.

Meanwhile, some Spanish highways eventually got paid off and are becoming
toll-free.

~~~
Scoundreller
Since French highways often refuse non-EU credit cards at their toll booths,
they have a special place in my heart.

~~~
greatpatton
A little bit like US Gas station I suppose?

~~~
mcrae
Don’t think so. I’ve used Korean, French, and Canadian cards with no issues in
the US at gas stations.

Meanwhile, good luck getting gas or paying tolls in France without a French or
other EU card.

French companies are also terrible at accepting non-French SEPA zone accounts.
By law, they should accept all IBANs but their websites bork when it’s not
French. Infuriating.

~~~
Scoundreller
It’s usually a pay-at-pump issue. Paying inside has always worked for me when
US pumps rejected my non-US card.

~~~
greatpatton
Exactly pay-at-pump is just not working with European cards most of the time
(not always true as I was able to find one working in Phoenix). Paying inside
is fine, but a hassle as you have to estimate the amount of gas you need for a
rental car you barely know.

By the way, in Florida you don't even have to wonder about a credit card at
the toll as it is Sunpass/pay by plate or cash only...

------
fbn79
Do you remember the Bloomberg article about Big China Chip Hack? About Apple
was been refuted, debunked, and ridiculed. See
[https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/04/editorial-a-
year-...](https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/04/editorial-a-year-later-
bloomberg-silently-stands-by-its-big-hack-icloud-spy-chip-story)

~~~
aguyfromnb
This story is so odd to me.

On the one hand, if true, all Bloomberg had to do was produce evidence; _a
single_ compromised server. They didn't. On the other hand, if the journalists
fabricated the entire story, saying that all these big companies were hacked,
why didn't anybody sue them? It was a _major_ accusation! It just
kinda...disappeared.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> On the one hand, if true, all Bloomberg had to do was produce evidence; a
> single compromised server. They didn't.

If the story were true, under what circumstances could Bloomberg reports have
come into possession of a compromised sever to satisfy this requirement?

> On the other hand, if the journalists fabricated the entire story

Journalists evaluate and report what they're told by sources. For instance:
they don't do scientific experiments themselves, but rather interview
scientists about their results and report their statements. Their quality
control is to get multiple sources to corroborate each other.

Saying Bloomberg journalists "fabricated" the story is going too far. If it's
false, what's likely is that either their _sources_ were either mistaken or
dishonest.

~~~
PeterisP
It's kind of not the case here. First, they're not required to take any claims
at face value, they can (and would be expected to) verify if they're actually
true by looking at the evidence their sources provide - and if there's no
evidence, then they'd be expected to note that it's all speculation.

Second, at least some of the claimed sources were not anonymous and were
interviewed later by others (there were a few HN threads back them some weeks
after the initial story) and they explicitly disclaimed that they have
confirmed the case, but rather that all they have told Bloomberg is
essentially "something like this might be theoretically possible, sure, but
the current evidence doesn't suggest that this has happened" \- so we have
some evidence that these Bloomberg journalists "attempted" to corroborate
multiple sources which did _not_ confirm the story that they wanted to tell,
but they went ahead with the story anyway.

------
Keverw
Interesting, didn't know press releases were vetted. I always figured they are
just copied and pasted since there's sites where you can pay to syndicate them
but not sure how legit that stuff is since never issued a press release, and
with many companies running their own blogs wonder if it's even worth doing
them anymore?

Also kinda reminds me of the lawsuit in Ohio against Facebook. A charter
school ran ads, and messed up their attendance count, so other school
districts are sueing Facebook trying to recover funds they thought should of
went to their school districts instead, which seems like an interesting case
but no updates on it in like 6 months, so not sure what the progress is on the
case.

------
aneutron
SuperMicro, if you're listening ....

~~~
ferdek
I was willing to bet before opening the link that it's about SuperMicro. I
would lost the bet ;)

------
humanrebar
The headline probably needs qualification that the fine was in Europe, not the
U.S. I was shocked that any U.S. regulator would attempt to push against the
First Amendment in this way. It's a different story with more context.

~~~
close04
> push against the First Amendment

This isn't a freedom of speech issue since obviously they were free to say
whatever they wanted, lies and misinformation included. This doesn't imply
freedom from consequences.

Causing a company to lose 18% value because they couldn't be bothered to
verify is negligence, incompetence, or malice (or a combination) not freedom
of speech and it's only fair to receive a fine. Bloomberg is making a habit of
such reporting.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
By that same logic, throwing someone in jail for insulting the President
wouldn't be a violation of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does indeed mean freedom from consequences for your speech -
at least governmental consequences.

~~~
close04
So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech.
How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? Or slander? Libel?
Obscenity? Telling someone to kill themselves (spoiler alert: you may get
convicted for involuntary manslaughter)? [0]

In this case the fine was not for the speech but for the market manipulation.
Saying "oh we were the victims of a hoax and just believed what a random site
said" is not a defense. Case law obviously has plenty of precedent for
consequences of free speech.

Yes the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech and this is where all the
confusion starts. Everybody has their own definition of _freedom of speech_.
Most are wrong or uninformed [1]. Given that even the Supreme Court has
varying opinions on this from time to time just says it's not an easy topic.
No, you don't have a blank cheque for saying anything you want without
consequences. Speech is still very much regulated, written press and
broadcasting are regulated (differently), etc. You have laws that criminalize
slander, market manipulation, etc.

Your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations)

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
> So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just
> speech. [...] Or slander? Libel?

As I said, the exceptions to freedom of speech are extremely narrowly carved
out. What you're discussing is incitement to violence. There is a very high
bar to prove incitement, libel or slander. It's almost impossible to libel a
public figure, for example. Almost anything you could say about a politician
is considered protected political speech.

> How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? [...] Obscenity?

These are restrictions that apply in very specific circumstances (e.g.,
representatives of public companies, television/radio hosts on certain
regulated spectrum).

> Speech is still very much regulated

In extremely narrowly defined circumstances, which usually have a very high
bar of proof. The general trend that I have observed since Trump's election,
which I find very worrying, is for many American liberals to begin calling for
greater regulation of speech. The 1st Amendment is incredibly expansive, which
is one of the most appealing aspects of the American Constitution, in my
opinion. In other countries (e.g., the UK and Germany), it is much easier for
the government to regulate speech, which I don't think is healthy for
democracy. It is easily for those in power to abuse such restrictions on
speech.

------
the_duke
In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it
should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article,
which contains:

* list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc )

* a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of information, only that the addendum is representative of the research done)

* A hash of a archive file containing all collected information (including interview transcripts/notes, etc) with a responsibility to keep this archive for X years and to provide it to regulators on request; info can be anonymized/redacted as deemed necessary

Combine this with a fine for the publication if they failed to verify
information with a reasonable effort, and it could do a lot of good for the
world of news.

Of course all regulation comes with pitfalls, and there are many with this
idea, especially with the fine aspect. Probably enough to make it undesirable.

But it is the only one I have to improve things.

Edit:

Since this has been mentioned: it's possible to allow anonymous sources, but
eg with the rule that anonymization has to be justified and may not be abused.

But this feeds into the biggest problem with the whole idea: a fine can give
regulators too much power to punish publications arbitrarily.

~~~
smt88
Well-respected publications have internal checks and balances that do all
these things for investigative stories already. You seem not to know enough
about how the journalism industry has solved these issues to make a proposal.

The system does work fairly well. Screw-ups of investigations and scoops are
big news because they're rare among serious journalistic outfits.

No individual journalist wants to be known for getting a story wrong, so
incentives are pretty strong to begin with.

~~~
joshlegs
I like how OP commenter is essentially arguing that the government should
regulate journalism, which fundamentally misunderstands the role of
journalists -- that is, it is a direct check and balance on the government,
except that it relies on the free market for competitive regulation. A
journalism outlet which consistently gets things wrong SHOULD fail. Trying to
regulate journalism massively fails not only in its intent to reduce errors,
but also in its implementation.

~~~
Karunamon
One avenue that I think hasn't been fully explored/exhausted yet is false
advertising regulation. Calling your product "news" carries a an entirely
reasonable expectation that the product is free of falsehoods. (I'm not
getting into bias, just absence of lies)

What would happen if we made that term (or synonyms like "journalism")
protected advertising terms, so that you're required to either live up to it,
or call yourself something else?

Another idea under this hypothetical law would be to have
retractions/corrections carry the exact same amount of publicization as the
original story. In other words, if you spend 10 minutes during primetime
talking about something that turned out to be a lie, you get to spend 10
minutes on primetime about how you screwed up. You lie on a front page article
that was up for a week? Your correction features in the same place for a week.

~~~
gnopgnip
Lies are still protected free speech in most circumstances. Additionally you
have the problem of policing who decides what is illegal

~~~
Clubber
As is the press. Outside of libel laws, the press is constitutionally exempt
from any type of regulation. As impotent as the press is today, I wouldn't
want any political party to be able to decide what it can and can't say.

------
ur-whale
As an FYI, Vinci is one of the most corrupt companies in France [1], and one
of the largest beneficiary of the French equivalent of US pork barrel
[2][3][4].

(links are to French language articles)

[1] [https://reporterre.net/Les-dix-casseroles-de-Vinci-
betonneur...](https://reporterre.net/Les-dix-casseroles-de-Vinci-betonneur-de-
Notre-Dame-des-Landes)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel)

[3] [https://www.monde-
diplomatique.fr/2016/03/DE_LA_CASINIERE/54...](https://www.monde-
diplomatique.fr/2016/03/DE_LA_CASINIERE/54958)

[4] [https://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soir/veolia-vinci-
bouyg...](https://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soir/veolia-vinci-bouygues-
eiffage-le-reveil-des-juges-contre-la-corruption-en-france_482530)

------
tarcyanm
Bloomberg is unique in being somewhat independent of the AP-AFP-Reuters
stranglehold that is described with appropriate skepticism here:
[https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/](https://swprs.org/the-
propaganda-multiplier/)

It would be interesting if that independence were regarded as a threat.

------
cs702
Why are mass purveyors of _anti-news_ and _propaganda_ on the Internet not
fined like this?

~~~
rc_mob
rtfa fine is from France, not USA

------
user5994461
All I am getting from this page is a "Login to read the full article".

Surprising that the regulators don't require them to acknowledge and publish
that they are being fined. Publicly that is, not behind a pay wall.

------
wheelzr
Classic case of the carrot and the stick. Freedom of the press radically
changed public access to news for the good. Was it too powerful? Back when you
had to own a printing press for mass consumption -- No it wasn't.

But it is now.

The demand for updates and net-new information creates markets for
information. There are too many pretenders and pranksters now because there
are no barriers to posting on the internet.

Until we start breaking down the anonymity of users posting data to indiviuals
there will be no one to answer for bad reporting.

Punishment should be doled out via the platform posted, similar to FCC going
after radio station DJ's and ultimately the broadcast network itself. This
will create an underworld for news. The news underworld will need to have a
few well known paragons and pranksters to bring a sense of balance and
uncertainty to non-regulated news.

First step would be to introduce small fines for sites that claim their
information is accurate. Classifying and identifying the obvious from NYT/WSJ
from Reddit and 4chan. Once the extremes are identified, lessons learned can
be applied slowly to the middle of the pack.

~~~
chmod775
There's a permanent reminder above 4chan's most notorious board that "only a
fool would take anything posted here as a fact." (or something along those
lines).

To respond to the entirety of you ludicrous idea: No thanks.

This story is an example of why existing regulation already seems to do the
job.

------
C1sc0cat
So Bloomberg got caught out by a fake press release and got fined - what
happened to the originator of the fake press release?

France has a problem /history with anonymous poison pen letters.

Sounds to me like some one was settling scores and Bloomberg got caught I
doubt that a French equivalent of Bloomberg would have been fined.

~~~
_eLRIC
French press can be fined, don't worry, i.e C8 3M€ in 2017, Amaury press group
3.5 M€ un 2015

On that very case, no one can tell.

------
neya
Bloomberg literally compensates its writers for moving markets. So, the super
micro case, this one and many others before these..no surprises here.

~~~
lawrenceyan
It seems like that would make it extremely to keep journalistic integrity
while working under such a compensation / commission structure.

How are you supposed to trust a Bloomberg article when the writers are
designing them specifically in a way to try and purposely move the market?
They would have every incentive to exaggerate, embellish, and even go so far
as lie as shown in this instance.

~~~
kevinmchugh
They also had an incentive to ignore or deprioritize stale or low impact
stories. The bonuses required that the market impact be durable, and the
stories still had to be edited to fit house style.

------
coldcode
There is no real penalty for publishing fake news as if it was truth. Whole
websites and media companies do it as a matter of course (often for political
or manipulative purposes). 5.6M to Bloomberg is pocket change. There are of
course still journalists with a burning desire to report the truth, but it's
far easier and profitable to ignore it today.

When the internet started we all thought that the truth would finally prevail
only to find out the non-truth is easier to amplify.

~~~
dgellow
> There is no real penalty for publishing fake news as if it was truth

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you publish fake information about a
public company, couldn't that be considered security fraud by the SEC? I'm not
an expert at all, and don't know the details of what is or isn't actually
considered a security fraud, so I may be completely off here.

If we are talking about the more general idea of "fake news", since 2018
France has a law "against the manipulation of information":
[https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/against-information-
manipulat...](https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/against-information-
manipulation).

------
nstj
@dang - arguably misleading title, please consider renaming to “Bloomberg LP
fined €5m for publishing fake press release”. Current title can be read that
Michael Bloomberg was personally fined.

~~~
derision
i'm not sure most people see "Bloomberg" and think of the person rather than
the company

~~~
gjstein
A month ago I would have agreed with you, but since he announced his candidacy
for the American Presidency I'd argue it's become less clear cut.

------
MarkMc
I initially thought Michael Bloomberg had issued a fake press release. Title
should really be "Bloomberg LP fined..." to distinguish the company from the
man.

------
knorker
Why? Didn't Fox News set a precedent when they won that lawsuit and courts
agreed they had the right to lie in the news?

Edit: Oh, because it's no the US.

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
Even Snopes knows that's false.

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-
check/fox-skews/)

But nice try...

~~~
knorker
Thanks for the correction!

I wish I could edit my comment. :-(

------
googlebigdream
And what about when the sitting administration illegally spied on an incoming
president?

------
augbog
Damn bloomberg publishing an article about how they themselves got fined? They
really milking everything they can from this

------
singularity2001
Doesn't this violate the freedom of speech?

~~~
swebs
The French constitution does not guarantee Freedom of Speech. That is a
uniquely American thing.

~~~
decebalus1
American exceptionalism is a uniquely American thing. Freedom of speech in the
constitution is not. Even Cuba has freedom of speech guaranteed by the
constitution.

