You have to understand that the GP context here is this bottom line: "The DOJ's clever hook won them the case." and your contribution: "Blatant complex behavi

You have to understand that the GP context here is this bottom line: "The DOJ's clever hook won them the case." and your contribution: "Blatant complex behavior, no matter how illegal, won’t convince a judge or jury without clear rhetoric." We have examples of both being wrong, because judges and juries are not all the same and experts exist. There's also a way to take time to explain complex ideas in simpler terms, that's what most of a case like this ends up being. The "Clear rhetoric" part of these things is only a relatively brief portion delivered during opening and closing, the rest involves presenting and interrogating evidence. As the also says his is a case in which the jury only plays an advisory role and the judge will make a final ruling. The judge in this case is Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers who has extensive experience in complex cases involving big tech, so she's going to be far less impressed with clever wording than solid legal work.