I wasn't trying to imply that. I was merely pointing out that the parent's assertion that: > I don't see why it's suddenly up for debate whether companies need

I wasn't trying to imply that. I was merely pointing out that the parent's assertion that: > I don't see why it's suddenly up for debate whether companies need to abide the letter of the law. Wasn't exactly true. I also have disagreements with other parts of the post, including "Origin of law is irrelevant" (what if the law arose from lobbying by a powerful industry vs for the common good) and "If you disagree you can campaign to have it changed" (and I assume obey it in the meantime) vs something like civil disobedience or jury nullification.