By all indications, Facebook and Google agreed to the same license as everyone else, and the license is anything BUT ambiguous, given that it's subtitled "for in-house, internal use applications" and then only gets more explicit about how it's intended to be used from there. I ran through a lot of the details about the license in a comment yesterday.
Given that Facebook was paying the users, whose to say they can't argue they were 'internal/employed/contracted' users as far as Apple's Terms define them? I'd argue that they are wrong and in my view are not compliant - but no doubt FB has a small nation army of lawyers to argue the contrary...
Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.