> The most frustrating part of this entire thing is that the intent of the law is pretty clear and yet they are trying stuff like this.
This is basically completely normal shit that american lawyers constantly pull - you're trying to put together a business contract that's been already agreed and then the legal team will just throw in insulting shit into contracts to see what kind of abuse they can get away with.
It's not surprising that this "approach" leaked into Meta's normal operations. They thought that if they manage to sneak in clauses in EULA, that they somehow won something (while they actually antagonized people they shouldn't).
They probably knew this wasn't going to fly but figure the revenue between them ignoring the law and having to follow the law would be more than the fine.
Someone decided how Meta's org chart is laid out and whether it's a structure that will result in legal compliance being taken seriously or one that won't.
If they picked one that won't, that's a conscious decision to ignore some portion of laws.
This is basically completely normal shit that american lawyers constantly pull - you're trying to put together a business contract that's been already agreed and then the legal team will just throw in insulting shit into contracts to see what kind of abuse they can get away with.
It's not surprising that this "approach" leaked into Meta's normal operations. They thought that if they manage to sneak in clauses in EULA, that they somehow won something (while they actually antagonized people they shouldn't).