The loophole is that the company is allowed to continue breaking the law while the appeal is in progress.
In special cases, the judge can issue an preliminary injunction where a party is compelled to do something (or not do something) while the court case is ongoing, but the bar for that is pretty high.
Now, you might want to appeal that to the next instance which makes it take years. But a court has already found you guilty.
In this case the law if it was sane should stipulate that the business either stop the violation during the appeal or risk the fine for the whole period of the appeal process if it turns out after appeal that you were guilty of the violation after all.
Facebook should have to seriously consider whether it’s worth the gamble to both fund the appeal process and pay the accumulating fines (which, again if the law is sane, amount to more than what FB would lose by simply stopping the violation).
If the court is so sure that the plaintiff will prevail, why even have a trial? The answer is that until the court rules, barring 100% certainty of the plaintiff prevailing, you have to wait for the court's deliberation or you have only oppression and no justice at all. Both sides must have a chance to make their case.
This means that the court is not sure that that is the case yet, and that the rights of the defendant are being respected. If you just kill the business on the mere accusation of wrongdoing, there is no justice, only oppression.
