There are anti-SLAPP laws but those are for more for protecting freedom of speech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

From what I understand vexatious litigant is a really, really high bar to cross, and any remotely competent lawyer should be able to prevent you from crossing it.

People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta. (In fact the obvious guess here was that they're being asked to testify in this antitrust case to the fact that their product is successful!)

A subpoena is just a demand for testimony. The court wants to "know what you know" so it can make a better decision. Testimony before courts of law is part of your civic duty as an inhabitant of a nation under the rule of law. Yes, it has costs. You have to bear them for the same reason you need to pay your taxes, because a civilization without courts isn't one we want to live in.

> People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta.

The only way to misunderstand this is to not have read the linked page. HN is not immune from headline-only outrage. The first paragraph literally ends with:

> ... in relation to the government's recent injunction against their acquisition of a VR fitness company.

Costs don't have anything to do with being sued or not. A subpoena to a person is relatively easy to respond to (unless you need a lawyer to help you negotiate the fifth amendment for reasons), but this will cost time and money, both things that we all know startups have in vast quantities.

If the answer is not Meta pays, then why isn't it?

I told you: The recipient pays as part of their civic duty. If you want protection under the law for your own grievances, you need to be prepared to assist the court in the adjudication of the grievances of others.

And the practical reason is that poor people have the right to petition courts for redress of grievances too. You're upset because Zuckerberg happens to be rich, so this seems unfair. But what if the startup had to sue someone and needed testimony from someone else to prove their case? You think they should have to pay just to get facts before the court?

At some point, yes, otherwise it can and will be abused, just like patent lawsuits already are.

There are cases of this already happening in the case of poor people, otherwise vexatious litigants wouldn't exist.

I wonder if the judge even knew that one of the list of companies was "small company mctinypants" or just assumed all were massive and huge.

Once more: it's just a subpoena. OP is looking at a few thousand dollars of legal fees and maybe a trip to wherever the court is. If you're operating a profit-seeking company in a legal regime that provides the protection that ours does, you simply have to be able to bear those costs. If your VC's or angels won't pay it, they aren't serious investors.