> $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit. Just 2.6% of profit or less than 0.8% of revenue. Seems like FB got the deal of the

> $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit. Just 2.6% of profit or less than 0.8% of revenue. Seems like FB got the deal of the century since any judgement would have real restrictions and enforcement with teeth. Since this is just a consent decree, FB can now start the 'malicious compliance' game where they incrementally erode, reinterpret and route around any deal terms they don't like. The DA's position is now substantially weaker because they'll have to go back to court to stop FB's inevitable backsliding. > I’d still want to know why they thought this was the moment to take the deal. Ultimately, this is about politics and money. By taking a lousy deal the DAs got their headlines and payoff now and can claim a 'victory' before the next election cycle. The alternative is even after the DAs won this ruling, FB would certainly drag out the inevitable appeals because ~$200B tanks the stock, while 0.8% of rev is just a cost of business. By the time all appeals were done none of these DAs would even be in office. Neither the headlines nor cash would do them any good.