I think that number is their revenue rather than their profit, which is probably closer to $3 billion. So, this fine would be (very roughly) 10% of their profits for the year.
I think they should be based on guidelines that take into consideration the damage the company did, irrespective of the amount of money they make or have in the bank. That's how it works for the likes of you and me.
Does this comment in any material way relate to either my comment or the comment to which I was responding? I'd love to know more about how it works in Finland, but I can't figure out why you left this message.
I think the point was that, in some countries, fines are scaled to wealth level. The typical example case is traffic violation: a $100 speeding ticket can be life-destroying for a poor person, and a pocket change for a wealthy person. The intent of the law is neither, so by scaling the fine by wealth of the offender, you can achieve the designed level of pain/annoyance regardless of one's material status.
An alternative to that, used e.g. in my country - Poland - is to create a "secondary currency" of penalty points. Rich or poor, you only have 24 of them, and if you lose them all, kiss your driving license goodbye.
One would think that penalty points could work here too, instead of scaling revenue, but the problem is, companies can rapidly split, merge, or otherwise shed their legal identity, so there's nothing to pin those penalty points to.
Note that the initial attacks by Hamas were deemed off-topic here...