Yeah, I'm not saying there's a 1:1 correspondence in the level of harm but rather that the corporate structure to shirk legal responsibility seems very similar. They had the opportunity to make the case that the scientific evidence was weak repeatedly and were unsuccessful, so it seems like they should be expected to honor the rules of the court or stop doing business in the United States.

Our entire legal system is based on the idea that both parties respect the court's decision (or appeal it, of course) and it seems really dangerous to allow the party with the most power to unilaterally opt out of that when it'll save them money.