[fwlr]

The FTC was warned at the time that they were flouting required procedures and that their rule would therefore not survive legal scrutiny. Lo and behold it did not.

[hshdhdhj4444]

Please point to an example of these warnings.

[voxic11]

Another example from the article

> At the time of the vote, Holyoak's dissenting statement accused the majority of hurrying to finalize the rule before the November 2024 election and warned that the new regulation "may not survive legal challenge."

[VWWHFSfQ]

> The FTC is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more. The FTC estimated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the rule would not have a $100 million effect.

> But an administrative law judge later found that the rule's impact surpassed the threshold, observing that compliance costs would exceed $100 million "unless each business used fewer than twenty-three hours of professional services at the lowest end of the spectrum of estimated hourly rates," the 8th Circuit ruling said. Despite the administrative law judge's finding, the FTC did not conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis and instead "proceeded to issue only the final regulatory analysis alongside the final Rule," the judges' panel said.

It says it in the article

[dboreham]

Because systematic corruption presumably?

[tbrownaw]

More that they mistakenly thought that doing the right thing meant they didn't have to do the thing right.

[weberer]

>they were flouting required procedures

[jibe]

If you are sniffing out corruption, aren’t the ones flouting required procedures likely the corrupt ones?

[guelo]

who warned them?

[Hnrobert42]

A then-commissioner who is now the head of the FTC.