My understanding is that courts and regulators give board members a lot of deference on their decisions, as long as they are well considered and not obviously r

My understanding is that courts and regulators give board members a lot of deference on their decisions, as long as they are well considered and not obviously ridiculous. It's perfectly fine for a board to say that the legal and reputational risks far outweigh the benefits of lacing burgers with cocaine. Most decisions, such as lobbying, involve complicated calculous and don't have a simple way to verify the ROI. The board can defend most positions (from no lobbying to lots of lobbying) by arguing that they believe it's the right decision based on their experience, judgement, and analysis of the situation; probably with some written analysis defending whatever their decision was at the time.