Wouldn't every action that results in a suit, including the franchise owner of a 7-11 selling Big Gulps to people with or at risk of diabetes, have to be against the law before such a suit could be initiated? It is against the law to drive a car faster than the speed limit, so this action could be the basis of a civil suit -- but not every action someone thinks is wrong. Or am I missing something here? (Note his comment does not lessen the argument you make against this kind of law. This precedent is scary.)