I think this is an example of what are normally externalities being arbitrarily imposed on an individual though.

There are so many things companies and others do that impose costs on others that singling out only those which meet a threshold that make it worth taking to court creates a discontinuity in outcomes which makes it seem punitive here.

I also hope the fine here is proportional to his ability to pay. Bankrupting poor people for mistakes in the outdoors, where the same penalty is expensive but manageable for the rich, also doesn't seem just.