Mark Lemley, a Stanford law professor and former legal representative for Meta, has announced that he is dropping the tech giant as a client due to CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent decisions to move away from third-party fact-checking and scale back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Lemley’s dramatic departure, which he shared on the left-leaning Bluesky platform, included sharp criticisms of Zuckerberg, accusing him of embracing “toxic masculinity and neo-Nazi madness.”
“I have fired Meta as a client,” Lemley proclaimed, adding that while he believed the company had a strong case in its ongoing generative AI copyright lawsuit, he could no longer represent them “in good conscience.” His decision follows Zuckerberg’s announcement last week that Meta would discontinue partnerships with fact-checking organizations and redirect its focus on fostering what Zuckerberg described as a return to “masculine energy” in corporate culture.
The professor also took aim at Zuckerberg’s comments during a podcast appearance with Joe Rogan, where the Meta CEO expressed concerns about the diminishing role of masculinity in today’s business environment. Lemley mocked the remarks, posting online, “Oh yeah, that’s the problem with tech companies — not enough testosterone,” complete with an eyeroll emoji.
Lemley’s decision comes amidst Meta’s ongoing legal battles over alleged misuse of copyrighted materials to train its AI models, including the Llama language model. The case, brought by authors such as Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, is part of a broader wave of lawsuits targeting the use of copyrighted works in artificial intelligence. Despite Lemley’s departure, he expressed confidence that Meta would prevail in the case, just without his involvement.
The timing of Lemley’s exit raises questions about the broader political motivations driving his decision. With Meta’s perceived alignment toward President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration—evidenced by scaling back DEI initiatives and removing the fact-checking program—Lemley’s move seems less about principles and more about signaling loyalty to the progressive elite.
As Democrats gnash their teeth over Zuckerberg’s policy changes, the irony is hard to miss. Meta’s newfound willingness to embrace transparency and reject woke corporate excess appears to be driving leftist critics into a frenzy. After years of liberal dominance over Silicon Valley’s ethos, Zuckerberg’s pragmatic pivot toward neutrality—or, as the left would frame it, “toxic masculinity”—is a breath of fresh air. Republicans have long called for corporations to return to their roots: fostering innovation and delivering value without bending to the pressure of progressive groupthink.
For conservatives, Zuckerberg’s latest moves are a reminder that businesses perform best when they focus on substance over ideology. Democrats, on the other hand, might need a cold glass of almond milk to soothe their outrage as they watch their once-reliable allies in Big Tech start to grow a backbone.
