Thank goodness the law is interpreted by judges and not engineers.
No, I'm not joking.
No, I'm not joking.
The complaint I see here is that wording, at least in the article, does neither of these.
(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.)
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.
Law is not code. They don't work the same. The longer you confuse them, the more confused you'll be.
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.
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."