Comment by drweevil

I understand the justification being used. But it's bogus. These corporations are engaging in theft from the general public, using deceptive business practices that organized crime would be proud of. The claim made by the complainants is that stopping them from robbing consumers would cost them more than $100M, which, if you include their ill-gotten gains, is probably true. IOW, "it would cost us too much to stop robbing people, therefore we shouldn't be forced to stop." The FTC rule was not ending a good-faith business practice. And the job of the courts is not sanctioning theft. Those are the main objections here.

As for the "despite being unelected" dig, let's apply this standard fairly. The courts are also unelected, as are the businesses involved.