b'insufficient plaintiffs allegations that Facebooks March 2017 statements that it had not uncovered anything that suggests wrongdoing with respect to Cambridge Analyticas work on the [Brexit] and Trump campaigns was misleading because the allegations lack[ed] contemporaneous facts from which the [c]ourt [could] infer that as of March 2017 Facebook had determined that the misappropriated data was still being used in connection with the Brexit and Trump campaigns. For twenty-five statements, the court found plaintiffs allegations of falsity and scienter sufficient, but held that they were not actionable nonetheless because plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation. More specifically, the court found that plaintiffs adequately alleged that officers at Facebook knew users could not completely control their data based on allegations of internal documents stating Facebook was supplying data to certain whitelisted developers, contrary to Facebooks public statements that it respected the privacy settings that people had in place. The court further concluded that plaintiffs pled sufficient facts to support allegations that defendants had knowledge that Facebook lacked control over deletion of misappropriated data and over the risk that a Cambridge Analytica scandal-type risk could happen again due to its whitelisting practices despite representing otherwise in public statements. However, the court found that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation for these statements, reasoning that the relevant timeframe for statements undermined by these whitelisting practices was from February 3, 2017 to June 3, 2018, but no facts were alleged to infer the stock price fell in June 2018 in connection with the disclosure of any information about whitelisting.The court also found that plaintiffs failed to allege scienter for a single statement by Facebooks CFO that we think with transparency and control, were set up well to be in a position where were compliant with GDPR when it goes into effect because plaintiffs failed to allege the CFO knew of or was involved in whitelisting. Plaintiffs argued scienter could be inferred because the CFO sold some of his stock during the relevant time period, but the court rejected this argument, holding that [i]nsider stock sales are not inherently suspicious, unless the level of trading is dramatically out of line with prior trading practices in a way to benefit from the undisclosed information. On October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint attempting to address the deficiencies highlighted in the courts dismissal order. Defendants motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was filed on December 18, 2020 , with briefing to conclude by April 5, 2021. Defendants also moved to strike the third amended complaint on December 18, 2020. Both motions are set for hearing on June 10, 2021.'