There's no shortage of people conflating "legal" with "ethical", so invoking the law to claim something is "acceptable" can easily be understood as claiming it

There's no shortage of people conflating "legal" with "ethical", so invoking the law to claim something is "acceptable" can easily be understood as claiming it is morally acceptable because it is legal. Especially when one can use the unambiguous and concise "legal" instead of the vague and plodding "In current law, though, it's entirely acceptable". Edit: You focus on legality to the exclusion of all else, while I care more about ethics and undue influence. Yes, the two cases are not identical. That does not mean they're not at least equally problematic.