Comment by privatelypublic

Thank you! I haven't a way with words to explain this in such a way. I saw that the article quoted the opinion as being based on "they didn't do a study for more than $100m impact, and I find that unlikely.

It'd be interesting/debatable if this was a "look, this was never legal- now we're just painting a bullseye on people doing it- the 100m impact isn't needed" And the judge went with 100m impact anyway. But that's beyond what I know or care to participate in past throwing it out there as a talking point.