They have just been found guilty, that's what the ruling is, and the outcome of the ruling is they should delete data derived from the related data. The ML models took the data as input, I think it's fair to say that if they want to argue the ML models do not derive from it despite that, they should maintain the burden of proof.

It's not possible to discuss legality of something, until a judge said we are allowed to discuss it? What?

So I can murder someone, and say "Innocent until proven guilty", and forbid anyone from discussing whether I'm a murderer, until I'm actually judged guilty?

But ok, sounds like you're nitpicking on my words, so let me rephrase the comment you're replying to.

"Considering that we have dozens of research papers showing that public models contain PII, how can we trust that FAANG's private models doesn't without auditing? It sounds safe to assume it does contain PII"

Generally not in administrative law. Executive authorities (e.g. tax office) make some decision and you can appeal to administrative court, but you have to prove why the decision was bad.

If you choose to handle PII you have to keep track of where it ends up. Feeding PII into a black box and pretending it isn't there anymore without taking reasonable precautions, especially on something like ML that is known to leak its input, doesn't seem like it should be an option. If you don't know the safe assumption should be that the ML model can leak PII and should be destroyed along with the training data.

It is, however in this case innocence means having a complete paper trail of your data processing as defined under GDPR. Not having such a paper trail is one of the things the IAB was found guilty of in this ruling.

Not in money laundering.