Even if it is in the contract the court would not necessarily side with you unless you can show that you were somehow wronged because of this. "They made me look bad" may not be sufficient.
IANAL but I don't think that's the test. If a person commits to not doing something as part of a valid contract that's all that matters.
The point you make may be relevant for deciding damages, but even here there is a concept of Liquidated Damages [0] which is essentially the damages amount set at day 1 so the question of ascertaining the extent of wrong does not arise.
As this very thread has made clear, Palmer Luckey's reputation has been damaged by Facebook's choice to renege on their statements regarding requiring a Facebook login. That's an injury. If it had been part of the contract he would absolutely be in a position to enforce it in court. It was NOT in the contract.
The great-great-grandparent post from this one (by
jacquesm) already raised your point and doubted that it is enough. I'm not claiming an opinion on whether this claimed reputational damage qualifies as an injury.
I'm just saying that an injury is required in principle (with an appropriate citation), because the great-grandparent (by vijayr02) didn't think that was the case.
If he got it just verbally then I can't see him having a case, they can claim they didn't say it and that will be hard to prove, it might still work but that's very thin ice.
If he got it written into the contract then it is clear that he does not intend to pursue it.
If it was written into the contract and he pursues it then he will need to show that he has suffered because the contract was not executed and I fail to see how he could make that case and do so with enough teeth that it would matter to FB enough to reverse course.
As someone who used to practice law, any discussion about contractual obligations is nothing more than speculation until you have read the specific contract in question.
IANAL so would definitely appreciate someone with more background correcting me - my understanding from lawyers is that the test is of disproportionality and penalty.
The example of UK bank overdraft charges in the Wikipedia article for instance can be seen as small powerless individuals vs large corporate.
In the Oculus case, a good lawyer should have been able to set out in the contract why this specific point is important to the seller (Palmer) and why significant damages are in order (damages credibility on future projects, which clearly could be multi-billion in scope).
The point you make may be relevant for deciding damages, but even here there is a concept of Liquidated Damages [0] which is essentially the damages amount set at day 1 so the question of ascertaining the extent of wrong does not arise.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages