Almost all of the top level comments (5/8 at time of writing, and 1 of the other 3 is a reductio ad absurdum) are mainly just comparing this lawsuit to hypothetical ones against other companies. If I weren't at risk of getting flagged for spam, I'd reply to every one of them with the wikipedia link for Whataboutism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
This case isn't any less valid because there are other possible cases that don't also exist.
This isn't whataboutism, this is questioning your sheriff why they used their limited resources to arrest a shoplifter but ignored a burglar. People are rightfully curious why the priorities seem off.
Saying an antitrust lawsuit against Meta is a waste of time and resources is a potentially valid argument. Saying it's a waste of time and resource unless they also go after Google or whoever is not.
You just did! And this claim is very different to the claim above. If you wanted to argue in favour of this claim, something like the statement below would be convincing:
"The expected cost of prosecution is X, and expected benefit is Y. X >> Y"
Are you implying you would be against people in that city discussing why burglars are let free in favor of going after shoplifters?
At any rate, whataboutism is typically about pointing out the hypocrisy of the criticising party - e.g. 'how can the government criticise Facebook when they spy on their citizens so much themselves'.
This is not Whataboutism. Have you carefully read the link you posted?
> Whataboutism - ... attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy
> Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
Nobody is claiming the prosecution is "engaging in the same behavior", nor that the prosecution is "claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".
The claim is that there is a bigger fish out there, and people are pointing out, that the bigger fish would be a better expense of the taxpayer money. Perhaps they even consider scenario of dropping Facebook case right now and starting cases against Google and Apple to be more beneficial than following through with it.
Who says they haven't started cases against Google and Apple?
Prosecutors don't go immediately public when they start building cases, because that's a great way of letting the defendants know they need to start covering things up.
This case isn't any less valid because there are other possible cases that don't also exist.