That's even worse, because then it's not really a law, it's a license for political persecution of anyone disfavored by whoever happens to be in power.
replyNever mind the damage that was willfully allowed to happen that the bill was supposed to protect from happening.
replyMeta made $60B in Q4 2025. A one-time $1.4B fine, 20 years after enactment, is not "getting hammered".
replyThey didn’t make $60B in Q4 2025 in Texas. 1.4B was 100% profit from Texas for years, that a big fine.
replyYou also have to ask "how much is the specific thing in the lawsuit worth to Meta?"
replyI don't know how much automatically opting everyone in to automatic photo tagging made Meta, but I assume its "less than 100% of their revenue".
Barring the point of contention being integral to the business's revenue model or management of the company being infected with oppositional defiant disorder a lawsuit is just an opportunity for some middle manager + team to get praised for making a revenue-negative change that reduces the risk of future fines.
Work like that is a gold mind; several people will probably get promoted for it.
Big for Texas, not for Meta.
replyIt’s under 5 hours of GDP for Texas. It’s a big fine, but not a huge deal for either party.
reply> Texas' sat on its biometric data act quite quietly then hammered meta with a $1.4B settlement 20 years after the bill's enactment.
replySounds like ignoring it worked fine for them then.
That sounds like it will be in the courts for ages before Facebook wins on selective prosecution.
reply