Ideally the law is written in language that can be understood by the people who are expected to follow it not just judges. Preferably without fuzzy boundaries where they are not necessary, like to avoid injustice.
The complaint I see here is that wording, at least in the article, does neither of these.
Since what it does is set procedure for the FTC during FTC investigations, the people that are expected to follow it are...the FTC.
(Its also important to people subject to FTC investigations to determine whether they are obligated to respond to particular things that purport to be a particular form of administrative subpoena, but, I mean, at the point that your business is subject to an FTC investigation in which they are issuing things that look like administrative subpoenas, you probably ought to be engaging counsel to guide you in that process for more reasons than just "is this something we need to obey", and the substantive law being investigated is going to be a much more complicated thing that the one page order adopting compulsory process for a particular domain of investigations.)
> but, I mean, at the point that your business is subject to an FTC investigation in which they are issuing things that look like administrative subpoenas, you probably ought to be engaging counsel to guide you in that process for more reasons than just "is this something we need to obey", and the substantive law being investigated is going to be a much more complicated thing that the one page order adopting compulsory process for a particular domain of investigations.)
More clear wording would hopefully allow business to avoid getting some CIDs on this topic and/or streamlining the process after getting a CID. If you know hat you need to document to make it clear you are the right side of the law, hopefully that would make the entire process go faster.
As stated elsewhere. This is so broad that it would include people selling handmade weathervanes. Which do not have access to legal council let alone a department.
Under that logic, why have rules at all? Let's just give the FTC the power to do anything it wants with no oversight and trust that they won't abuse that power in any way. It would certainly make it easier for them to do the things we want them to do, and after all, the FTC has no history of abusing the powers it never previously had.
Law is not code, law is law, and our legal system is based on the idea that by default the government can't do things, we specifically allow things if and only if we want the government to actually be allowed to do those things, and we limit what we allow as narrowly as possible while still enabling the goal to be accomplished. There is a long history of overly broad laws being applied in obviously unintended ways, with countless examples of horrific consequences, which is why we set up our legal system this way. We know that relying on reasonable interpretation is a bad practice that should be avoided as much as possible. It is laughable to dismiss such concerns as being rooted in a lack of understanding of how the law works, indeed I would describe anyone who does not have such concerns as naïve at best.
> We know that relying on reasonable interpretation is a bad practice that should be avoided as much as possible.
I have some bad news for you about the last couple hundred years or so of how the US legal system works, especially in but not exclusive to the aspects of case law and judicial review.
For future reference, the convenient shorthand for your position here is: "Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided."
The complaint I see here is that wording, at least in the article, does neither of these.