No one says ToS are laws and especially not the parent commenter.

The parent comment brings up the ToS as an example of why it's naive to believe Meta is obligated to do something, but what Meta is obligated to do depends on the law.

And which laws state that Meta is obligated to show ads like this?

Irrelevant. My point is that the parent comment did imply that the ToS created obligations for Meta in the way that laws do, which means your first comment was incorrect.

They absolutely didn't imply that. They implied that Meta doesn't want to show the ads so it's native to think Meta would just show the ads without being forced to. Which is correct.