If they went back to operating as “friends and family feed providers” then letting them keep their 230 immunity would be easier to justify.

It's to allow companies to not have to deal with individual claims for each person. I see that the ranges can be substantial though, several thousands, but seems to be criteria.

> Nearly nine months later, Mark received a notification that his claim had been approved. Two weeks after that, $186 was deposited into his bank account. While the amount wasn’t substantial, it covered a grocery run and a phone bill—and more importantly, it reminded him that companies can be held accountable, even in small ways. [0]

[0] https://peopleforlaw.com/blog/how-much-do-people-typically-g...

If the fine's don't dissuade companies from bad practices, the class actions with theoreticaly no upper limit might be a better option to enforce proper behaviour.

It's not a hard thing to implement on their end and should be mandated by a judge as you said.

Filing this away for later use.

These people are one of the few people holding Meta accountable for their evil acts and because of that you call them "scummiest people in the US"

That's nonsense.

As they say, "95% of lawyers give the remaining 5% a bad name."

At the same time, 99% of social networks give the remaining 1% a bad name.

Wild stuff