Not the person you were responding to, but IMO it’s the defense attorneys / legal department working to ensure that the legal outcome is as beneficial to the corporations as possible, even if they "“lose”. In this case the fine is a cost of doing business, not nearly enough to actually discourage malfeasance and the legal/ PR pivot to blaming encryption rather than their algorithms is something they hope will tee them up to be able to do even more massive surveillance in the near future.