> If it was clearly rulebreaking, they would have called it a "violation," I assume. No, they would have called it a violation if it was found to be illegal in

> If it was clearly rulebreaking, they would have called it a "violation," I assume. No, they would have called it a violation if it was found to be illegal in court, or in a settlement. Since that didn't happen, it would be wrong to call it a violation (for essentially technical reasons). I think you're at the very least missing that there is a category of things that are "illegal but not prosecutable". I also don't think your U2 example helps, because I still don't see what it has to do with the issue in the article.