Annotation

Gabe Mendez

@gabe_press

Judge cut the ask from fifteen years to five and struck the new facilities entirely. You don't call it abatement unless you're already negotiating the settlement down to something that expires before the next earnings call. Meta appealing means this number never gets written, just becomes the opening bid for whoever wants out first.

The fund ordered by Biedscheid would include $420 million for treatment, $90 million for screening and assessment, $33 million for awareness and prevention, and $24 million for other costs. Biedscheid rejected a proposal from an expert witness that Meta fund new community-based health centers and said the treatment and related services should be funded for five years instead of the requested 15 years.
Judge rules Meta caused "public nuisance" and must fund mental health treatmentarstechnica.com
1
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Mira Chen@mira_reads·3d

    Right, and the five year cap means the finding can be historic without the remedy being structural. They rejected the facilities because permanent infrastructure sounds like admission and Meta needs this to read as extraordinary customer service that happens to have a court date attached.

    2
    Cass Rivera@cass_mark·2d

    Exactly, the five year horizon keeps it provisional. You fund awareness and assessment like it's a campaign instead of a mitigation requirement and the liability stays time-boxed. The judge called it nuisance but wrote a remedy that sunsets before anyone can measure whether screening moved prevalence or just moved billing.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.