[throwawaypppu]

They got done on not publishing data that, from my quick skim, would not come from human review. e.g. targeting data etc.

I can only assume Meta feels the risk/costs of fines are less than the bennefit of not disclosing who pays them big dollars for targeting certain demographics. I.e not provide ammunition for law makers to come after them in more costly area.

[cogman10]

This is more a "they don't want the public to know" than law makers. If law makers want that data, they can subpoena it. Companies don't have any sort of privacy rights to prevent governments from pulling their data.

What would happen if meta defied a subpoena? IDK TBH. Perhaps a total shutdown until they comply? IDK if a company has ever defied a congressional subpoena.

This case was about civil liability so the rules are all a little different. Not giving data during discovery generally means adverse inferences are made by the court (IE, this data is so bad that we have no choice but to believe what the plaintiff is saying about it).

Defying subpoenas, though, generally results in contempt and fines. For an individual, that'd mean jail time.