Actually, much of the commercially collected evidence is not strong in court if it is admissible in court at all. One can simply reject it claiming that it is a mis-association, but only if there isn't further objective data that conclusively ties one to the collection. In practice, usually the government finds evidence that is more directly incriminating, and the the commercial evidence is then secondary to the case.
It would be nice if it were true, but it's absolutely admissible via whatever employee of the commercial source they bring in as a witness to testify that it is super duper reliable.
