> 400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law. 400k is what they settled for.

> 400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law. 400k is what they settled for. They did so, presumably because they were exposed to even worse because they behaved egregiously and if damages did not include a substantial punitive component (at least proportional to the inverse of the successful litigation rate) it would be economically irrational to not break the rules constantly.