It's like saying, "Judge, I wasn't speeding!" is a valid sort of defense on DUI. Granted, not speeding is a good thing, but stick to the question, which didn't involve speeding.
Various industry associations and individual businesses (“Petitioners”) sought
review of the Rule in four federal circuit courts on the grounds that the FTC exceeded
the scope of its statutory authority in promulgating the Rule, failed to satisfy a
procedural requirement by declining to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis
during the rulemaking process, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in issuing a rule of this scope....
Concluding that the Commission failed to follow procedural requirements under § 22
of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 57b-3(b)(1), we grant
the petitions for review and vacate the Rule.
If the accusation is failure to do to the required analysis and (I assume thereby) acting arbitrarily were the defects.
Note that a few sources say something like the regulatory analysis entails describing reasonable alternatives to the rule, including a a cost-benefit analysis for each alternative, and then assessing how effective the rule and each alternative to the proprosed rule would be in achieving the objective they said they wanted to achieve.
But hey, comments. Blow past the question and look good. Because the media always acts like a judicial decision is rooted in whim and politics--and while those can influence legal interpretation, most of the time there are words and precedents that guide them and limit them and regardless of the outcome, if those words and precedents aren't at least nodded to the judge gets overruled. Ignore all that and the press just gets income from clicks. Could enlighten, but hey, that's hard work, esp. for people that have trouble getting through the headline.
Yeah, when my students do it I call it twisting the truth to preach a lie.
= new reply since forum marked as read