I find it irritating when people move the goalposts and don't acknowledge opposing evidence, so I think it's really important to stop here and acknowledge that

I find it irritating when people move the goalposts and don't acknowledge opposing evidence, so I think it's really important to stop here and acknowledge that this is relevant evidence, even though it wasn't exactly what I said I was looking for originally. It's not a case where the US and EU companies are on the same side like I originally proposed, but those might be too rare to test anyway, so I was probably being a bit silly. Failing back to these more common cases, I don't think (and shouldn't have implied that) one case alone in a decade completely decides the question of bias, but it should definitely shift the probabilities here, if you want to be bayesian about it. EDIT for emphasis.