My read on IVDN hearing. The FTC is pivoting to prosecuting false marketing claims from prooving the product failed to meet CFR testing requirements. Because FTC failed twice to produce an expert witness. Smart strategy to try to make IVDN need to do same and hope IVDN will also fail to produce and expert, and they'll win on those grounds. IVDN's position is not as strong as I'd like here, and their attorney gently stated they didn't initially disclose how they tested was based on 'innovations' permitted under applicable CFR. I respected the judges were equally brutal to both prosecution and defense, but IVDN attorney did not have good answers for 'so do you tell installers about the need for an air gap?', 'No ... because, scientific mumbo jumbo the judges can only disambiguate with expert testimony; hence the problem. IVDN attorney recovered, closed by stating that burden of proof always remains with prosecution based on US Civil code otherwise (explained how hearing would have otherwise proceeded but didn't). This was an EXCELLENT point.
No idea which way this goes. It's a complete abuse of FTC power in exchange for a few thousand dollar campaign contribution to someone in an elected position. More tax payer money has been spent in prosecution than IVDN will earn in next 3 years.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
