Typically speaking, a federal regulatory body's enforcement calculus follows this procedure:
1. How big is the target company?
2. How scary are its lawyers?
3. Do we expect the company to put up a fight?
4. Is the fight worth it? (e.g., Are there important precedents at stake? Can we make an example of the company in question?)
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the desire to pursue the fight in court fizzles out at Step 4. (And sometimes there's an ancillary Step 4a: "How many other battles are we fighting right now?")
I'm not being glib here; I'm just being cynical, but realistic. This is pretty much how my friends at various agencies have described it to me. It doesn't seem too farfetched, if perhaps a bit simplified.
If only the DEA was so limited in its resources that it had to come to that sort of calculus. We'd have a lot less people who committed victimless crimes in prison.
1. How big is the target company?
2. How scary are its lawyers?
3. Do we expect the company to put up a fight?
4. Is the fight worth it? (e.g., Are there important precedents at stake? Can we make an example of the company in question?)
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the desire to pursue the fight in court fizzles out at Step 4. (And sometimes there's an ancillary Step 4a: "How many other battles are we fighting right now?")
I'm not being glib here; I'm just being cynical, but realistic. This is pretty much how my friends at various agencies have described it to me. It doesn't seem too farfetched, if perhaps a bit simplified.