Exactly. That's why the public hearing was held. To make her and the case famous. This is how you play the game. Now Meta can still sue but it risks damaging its public image by going after a famous whistleblower.
One of the benefits of having a lot of scandals. Will get buried in the noise. Those that care about this kind of stuff already hated meta, those that don't care won't start caring now.
> And an NDA being void due to such a situation does not stop the company from taking legal action against, costing you lots of money and time to defend
Not really. If the NDA is void (such as the case with congressional hearings), there isn't going to be a lengthy legal proceeding. The judge would look at it and throw it out.
Congressional Subpoenas are at same level as Court Subpoena. So if Congress subpoenaed her documents, she could (willingly) turn them over and not be in breach of her NDA.
Congressional hearings can compel witnesses to answer questions under oath, among other things.
People brought before a Congressional hearing like this can be held in contempt of court for failure to cooperate. Testimony is subject to perjury laws.
This wasn't just someone writing a letter to Congress with some claims. This was a Senate hearing convened on the matter.
You can end up in legal quandary where you fight over exactly what NDA can and cannot cover. Congressional Subpoena would put her on much firmer legal standing. My guess is her lawyers recommended this strategy.
> You can end up in legal quandary where you fight over exactly what NDA can and cannot cover. Congressional Subpoena would put her on much firmer legal standing
A corporate NDA cannot prevent you from cooperating with a Congressional hearing.
I heard about her book, I also heard about lawsuit threats from Facebook. Facebook is a rich company so a threat from them to sue you is a serious threat. I'm sure they threaten to sue people to try to quash uncomfortable information as do probably lots of companies. Are you thinking she made up the threatened lawsuits?
No, the poster they were responding to was claiming that the whisleblower didn't need to wait for a congressional hearing, that she could have just presented the documents she claims to have as "evidence for a legal proceeding". But such a legal proceeding doesn't exist (apart from the Congressional hearing she was waiting for), there is no one suing Facebook for corporate malfeasance or whatever where she could present some documents she has as evidence while abiding by her NDA.