It sounds more like a statutory damages thing, although note I have not read the law.
The idea with statutory damages is that determining the actual damages can be difficult and uncertain, so some laws allow plaintiffs to elect to ask for damages from a standard range, and the court will decide where damages should fall in that range based. It's basically saying "just give me about what is typical for cases like this one".
Presumambly the upper end of the scale would be closer to identity theft with total asset loss and fraudulent lines of debt, which is likely would occur if eg google got hacked.
Are there any guidelines for determining actual compensation?