A future judge will not be so kind if they keep doing it.
Being punitive the first time is unwise because it invites abuse by others seeking an advantage.
I'm not so sure this is the first time. 100th, maybe.
Hmm, idk why the downvotes. Maybe from people who don't know how to use google? Took me 5 seconds to find several more from this year alone.
2026: https://apnews.com/article/meta-court-ruling-mental-health-o...
2026: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/24/meta-new-...
How many more "first times" shall we give them?
Very ironic insulting everyone’s Googling abilities when you didn’t even read your own links...
In my defense though, they didn't pay, so the court upped the amount. It's still not their "first time". Here, I found this using Google too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_Meta_Platfo...
It's insane that you can keep breaking laws if you're a business and can afford the fines. There's very little reason for any company to not just break the law or endanger people, because the penalty is fair low (if you're large enough). If the owners and shareholders risked losing their holdings, there would be some incentive to do better.
Equally frighting is that you can just employee people to defend your illegal and/or shitty business practises. How the hell is it even remotely possible for Meta find legal representation anymore. They've done so many bad things that you'd expect the lawyers to yell at Zuckerberg, Liar Liar style, that he should stop breaking the law. Doesn't Meta have lawyers that good enough check their business for illegal or legally risky decisions?