I dunno, it seems like the judgement is sound to me. I’d place that error on the offending party, not the enforcing body. Company clearly wasn’t paying attentio

I dunno, it seems like the judgement is sound to me. I’d place that error on the offending party, not the enforcing body. Company clearly wasn’t paying attention to the books nor the harm their use of technology was causing, and thus got their just rewards for that behavior. “Talking about screwing up twice” seems like a more accurate statement.