Okay, I phrased that a bit strongly, I admit. I appreciate the reasons in the examples you give (atheletes: injury; hedge funds: insider trading/pump-and-dump/

Okay, I phrased that a bit strongly, I admit. I appreciate the reasons in the examples you give (atheletes: injury; hedge funds: insider trading/pump-and-dump/etc; programmers: well, your boss is paying you to learn to code better as much as to actually code - competing with him, given that, would not be playing nice), but I still don't get it for the original example in the link. I just don't understand how a business could be held liable for the behaviour of its employees when they're not at work, especially if there's a brief disclaimer appropriately placed. If that's really the case, then liability law is screwed. If not, then the business in question is either being paranoid, or disingenuous about its reasons for these rules.