Who needs venture capital money when you have litigation? Facebook was awarded $711 million in damages Thursday in an anti-spam case against Sanford Wallace, an internet marketer. The popular social networking platform went after Wallace for tapping its users' accounts without their permission and sending fake posts and messages.

Wallace has quite a reputation for spamming, having gained the nicknames "Spam King" and "Spamford" back in the 1990s, when he was good for up to 30 million spam e-mails a day.

Here's a bit of juicy news. According to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plans to crack down on market manipulators. They have decided to levy fines up to $1 million dollars per violation a day. The rule covers both physicals and futures.

The crackdown involves mainly the oil traders. Specifically, the language reads as follows: It bans oil market players from issuing "false public announcements of planned pricing or output decisions, false statistical or data reporting, and wash sales intended to disguise the actual liquidity of a market or the price of a particular product." The rules would also prohibit "material omissions from a statement that, although true, is misleading under the circumstances."

Did you know that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to take bloggers to task for a new form of advertising? The FTC is in the process of updating its "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" for the first time since 1980. What does this mean?

Well, the FTC is going to crack down on "word-of-mouth marketing." This type of marketing consists of advertisers paying bloggers to review their products. And by "pay" we mean the bloggers get free product samples, gift certificates for shopping sprees, cash, or a year's car loan. Yes, this is what some of the advertisers have paid bloggers for their "reviews."

Pretend we're still living in the 1960s for a minute, and imagine someone warning of a monopoly on organic and natural food. Everyone around laughing and pointing... Now cut to 2007 and the headline in the Wall Street Journal: "The FTC plans to file a lawsuit to block Whole Foods' $365 million purchase of Wild Oats over antitrust concerns..."

From steel to sustainably-farmed wheatgrass, this is how far we've come in our ability to monopolize something. Way to go U.S. of A.!

For the record, I think the Whole Foods Market Inc (NASDAQ: WFMI) acquisition of Wild Oats Markets (NASDAQ: OATS) is a good thing. There is a plentiful supply of organic and natural produce and other products available at both small local cooperatives and farmer's markets and large supermarket chains -- in my opinion, tofu makers are not going to be outrageously squeezed. They're providing their products to enough outlets that it's hard for me to believe Whole Foods (even were it an evil monopolistic type of corporation) would create any pricing pressure. The FTC's blockage is on concerns of anticompetitive forces; will local chains like New Seasons and little scrappy cooperatives end up getting squeezed out? I can't imagine. If anything, the entrance of bigger fish like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc (NYSE: WMT), Safeway Inc. (NYSE: SWY) and Kroger (NYSE: KR) are far more likely to create problems for organic and natural food suppliers than the kinder, gentler (and much, much smaller) Whole Foods.

But that's just my opinion, and investors have sent the stock down quite a bit on the news, $1.54 or 3.6% to $40.15. As for me, I'm putting in a 'buy' order right now.