> Who is the government to say that a particular review isn't authentic?
The government.
> Reviews are subjective.
That doesn't mean that they aren't fraudulent in how they portray, among other things, their provenance. (It also doesn't mean they aren't false in how they portray facts; the fact that some parts of reviews, such as ratings, are subjective doesn't mean that they don't include fact claims which are objectively true or false.)
> There is a reason that these cases were settled
Yeah, because the people on the receiving side considered that their probability of winning at trial and getting off with no penalty did not outweigh the cost of trial plus (probability of a penalty being imposed) × (the likely cost of any imposed penalty).
> had a single one of these actually been brought into a courtroom, the case would have been laughed out of it on constitutional grounds.
Were that the case, that would have been a major disincentive for the targets to settle.
The cases, like many others brought by overzealous prosecutors, were settled because the state offered settlements at a discount to anticipated defense costs. As to your other arguments, depending on the content of a review, it could be fraudulent. But again, US law doesn't (yet) specify criteria upon which I must base opinions that I choose to share.
> But again, US law doesn't (yet) specify criteria upon which I must base opinions that I choose to share.
That's a non-sequitur, since neither US law nor the criteria on which opinions were based were the basis for the case. New York Law on deceptive business practices and false advertising was the basis.
If New York has a law that imposes the criteria upon which opinions shared with others must be based (I can pretty much guarantee that they don't), it will be quickly tossed out on constitutional grounds.
> If New York has a law that imposes the criteria upon which opinions shared with others must be based
...it would be completely irrelevant to this case, which isn't about criteria on which shared opinions are based. As I said the last time you raised this red herring. Its based on New York law about deceptive business practices and false advertising, not anything about third-party independent reviews and the criteria on which they are based.
The government.
> Reviews are subjective.
That doesn't mean that they aren't fraudulent in how they portray, among other things, their provenance. (It also doesn't mean they aren't false in how they portray facts; the fact that some parts of reviews, such as ratings, are subjective doesn't mean that they don't include fact claims which are objectively true or false.)
> There is a reason that these cases were settled
Yeah, because the people on the receiving side considered that their probability of winning at trial and getting off with no penalty did not outweigh the cost of trial plus (probability of a penalty being imposed) × (the likely cost of any imposed penalty).
> had a single one of these actually been brought into a courtroom, the case would have been laughed out of it on constitutional grounds.
Were that the case, that would have been a major disincentive for the targets to settle.