The judge did threaten Facebook with harsher treatment if they ever ended up in his court again. From the end of the court decision: > The Court ends by notin

The judge did threaten Facebook with harsher treatment if they ever ended up in his court again. From the end of the court decision: > The Court ends by noting that under the Stipulated Order it retains jurisdiction over this matter, including to enforce its terms. See Stipulated Order at 5. In the event that the parties return to this Court because the United States alleges—once again—that Facebook has reneged on its promises and continued to violate the law or the terms of the amended administrative order, the Court may not apply quite the same deference to the terms of a proposed resolution. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, a district court must be especially deferential “when the proposed decree comes to a district judge in the first instance as a settlement between the parties.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461. But, on the other hand, when “a district judge has administered a consent decree for some period of time,” and is therefore likely more familiar with the relevant context, “the lack of an initial trial is, at least marginally, less of an inhibition” when weighing the appropriateness of a proposed remedy.[1] [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6876914/4-23-20-Facebook-Order.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6876914/4-23-20-F... (linked in the first sentence of the article)