[udue73uru]

I kind of see it but it still seems like a stretch since lots of companies take legal action against governments for a variety of reasons. At face value the company is airing a legitimate concern/grievance and they're using the EU's own courts to explore the legitimacy of that grievance so it's not like they're subverting the rule of law somehow.

[buran77]

The problem is that whatever you'd search for, that term could and eventually would, by any means necessary, be found in "employees’ health information, performance evaluation and even job applications to the company". Then again you can't not see the irony of the situation where FB is complaining that someone is requesting too much data from them.

> Facebook is also seeking interim measures at the Luxembourg-based General Court, Europe’s second-highest, to halt such data requests until judges rule

Having participated in such investigations I can tell you one thing for sure, whatever the final outcome of their initiative FB can only win from the respite this would provide. Evidence gets old and data retention policies just happen to kick in, evidence gets lost, evidence gets moved to another jurisdiction, etc.

I am taking the uncharitable interpretation because it's the most realistic.

[ggggtez]

I'm inclined to take the realistic approach: It's in their best interest to fight any anti-trust investigation, regardless on whether their denial is legitimate or not. A successful anti-trust suit could cost FB billions of dollars, which is well worth some overtime for a few lawyers to delay-delay-delay.

It's their lawyer's role to make every step of the legal process as painfully slow as possible.

[petre]

Maybe they're buying time for some reason or another. The documents are witheld until this is settled.