Re: Honest questions
Except that, I like many other people who live in the states, we realize that in fact companies commercial speech is constantly both blatantly false and deliberately misleading. There isn't enough funding to enforce the limited regulations on anything but the worst actors and often not even then. It provides a shield of protection to some of the worst and most predatory agents in our nation.
All of this in the name of protecting us from the simple ability to regulate businesses. Often framed, as above, with some variant of a false argument that that is impossible for the government to regulate businesses competently, so we have to bar them (state, federal, municipal) from doing so. This in addition to the fact that bad actor businesses ignore the few restrictions placed on them with relative impunity.
If selective prosecution is a problem(It is, at SO many level in the US government, FIX THAT. Don't pretend a company is the same as an individual actual person and then presume any regulation impinges that imaginary entities rights. Citing one case where someone argued the precedent in favor of government transparency is a poor example, as Apple could, should have, and did present a strong argument on other grounds. Whistleblower protection laws and strong protections individual privacy are much stronger ways to protect our collective rights, ones that don't foolishly depend on the outcome being in the interests of the executives at a corporation.