In this thread, for instance, when asked what unreasonable thing Google was doing, no one has an answer apparently. Let alone, alternatives.
Same with Fair vs Unfair.
So when it gets to the courts, and some line gets drawn - many people will get surprised, because what they thought was illegal/legal will not be the case.
And they were not likely unreasonable or wrong before hand either.
It’s not literal (as in de jure) ex-post facto of course, but it’s pretty close to de-facto.
Frankly, it’s awfully similar to the SEC’s handling of crypto regulation (and the confusion and BS resulting from it).
Have a vague enough rule that almost anything could apply. Refuse to provide any guidance or enforce it consistently. Come down on someone you don’t like later (after they’ve been doing it for decades), and claim they’ve been violating it the whole time and they should have known (somehow).
It may be legal (or not, we’ll find out), but it doesn’t seem just.
