It's nice that the lawyer may have good intentions, but the legal theory is still crackpot.
I don't cheer for silly legal theories to prevail just because of good intentions. The unintended consequences of silly legal theories prevailing are likely to be higher than any good achieved in this one instance.
I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I tend to agree with you. The sister comment to your comment (about AAPL and it's tracking/privacy changes and the effects on other companies) is a good example why. Some externalities may be realized as effects on other companies that may be part of a portfolio, but some may not be. For example, what about how users value their privacy?
It's a very interesting legal approach, but that doesn't make it right. Externalities are very tricky.
Normally the lawyers in these cases have one of either 2 motives - 1) idealogical (will pursue theses cases to push a political point so as to influence/intimidate others and to develop a political policy down the line) or 2) Financial. And if all things go well they get both done. Whether or not these intentions are good probably depends on whether you think freer markets should be allowed or not. Or whether they should be governed by idealogy pushing the money to one side of the political spectrum or another.
I don't cheer for silly legal theories to prevail just because of good intentions. The unintended consequences of silly legal theories prevailing are likely to be higher than any good achieved in this one instance.