I can see the point of trials: as the article says, people told to lie will act very differently from people who want to lie, and a bunch of real-world data versus some lab data is surely going to improve it. I am not convinced that there is nothing about a person that gives away, at least in a good number of cases, whether someone is lying.

I'm just wondering if it's too much to hope that they'll base the decision whether to implement it beyond the trial on data and not on marketing.

And there is of course the argument that it should be possible, albeit with a lot of effort and/or a reasonable punishment, to break the law. (If this was impossible, we'd never get out of regimes we don't agree with, and with the advance of technology I'm afraid we're heading somewhere where a small group is actually able to oppress a huge number of people.)