So your view is that we should enforce extremely strict laws arbitrarily and capriciously based on however the particular regulator or prosecutor feels about a given entity?

I can’t imagine how this could be abused.

If you've ever been on the interstate system, then you are basically with me. Literally it would be trivial in today's world to have a hookup on your car to check your speed against the local signage on a somewhat real time basis. Sounds absurd, but there is a pretty good chance every long haul truck you see out there is doing exactly that.

Similarly, mens rea is a thing. Such that statutory enforcement of rules is often a regressive policy that isn't necessarily a good idea.

I think most people who have driven on the interstate are quite aware that police arbitrarily pull people over for many things given the vast number of laws that are continuously broken by all drivers. I do not think a regime where you’re always breaking a law and can be pulled over just for driving while black is a good example when advocating for prosecutorial discretion. I’d prefer a system that doesn’t result in being subject to a regulatory action or prosecution because I was doing business while black.

Ah, agreed. And if you take the worst possible interpretation of my post I can see how you get there.

My point was that many rules get enforced on a cost benefit based system. Especially in business where enforcement is necessarily an expensive undertaking. Ideally, part of enforcement will include evolution of the rules so that people don't grow into a situation where what they are doing is suddenly illegal. That said, many of the rules we are looking at here are more along the lines of "you left interstate driving and are now in a city." That is, the landscape and situation pretty much has to factor into the rules. Is why you would be an asshole for worrying about the kid's lemonade stand down the corner. Any grandstanding on how the rules apply universally is... well, just not useful.

My interpretation isn’t the worst possible interpretation, it’s the realistic interpretation based on how permitting discretionary application of the law actually works in practice. Your view is fine in theory but fails (and not just fails theoretically - it has failed and continues to fail actually) in practice. Advocating for your theoretical ideal when we know it fails in practice is… well, just not useful.

I'm largely acknowledging that that is where we are. And not too concerned about that for many rules. But, and I said so in the initial post, expect that more and more will get enforced both as you get bigger, and as we get better at enforcing them.

That is to say, I also expect clarification and evolution of the rules during this enforcement action. Such that I would be most happy to have some of these arrangement flat out illegal. That said, https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... was linked on Matt Levine's email today. And... "Our company monitors competitors' ads, and we sometimes offer to match special discounts or sales incentives for consumers. Is this a problem?" is answered with a no. Such that, this is a tough field to litigate right now.

And, what is it you are advocating for? That we only have rules that we can universally enforce? That would require that we know all of the ways that they can be broken from the beginning, so that we can encode those in law.