I think it's probably a good thing too, but will it stand the test of judicial review?
If I am a business and I want to put a non-disparagement clause or review gag order into my contracts, I don't see why I can't. Nobody is forced to do business with me, and they entered knowingly (presumably) into the agreement.
So these people are "pro-choice" and others are "pro-life." Doesn't it make sense if you're an ideologue to take away the positive connotations of "pro" and even "life" by calling your opponents "anti-choice?"
Can someone explain why the backend matters? I've not used Angular 2 but have used 1 extensively, and it always just calls a rest service for JSON. I understand others will have other needs, but won't you always just be calling a URL to get or submit data? That service could be written in BASIC for all I care.
This. Looks pretty cut and dry to me. I love how everyone gushed all over it when it was announced. Made no sense to me that a business owner would make a decision like that out of the goodness of his heart. I know. I sound like a Scrooge.
But that's how it is. Start your own business so you can be a shot-caller.
I have a feeling that repeat offenses will grow the fine, eventually leading to prosecution. I think 3/4m is a pretty good deterrent to others. It's kind of a warning shot to other venues that would do the same. Even in this example: I read most of the linked PDF, and the offender fined here stopped blocking wifi 2 months after the FCC fined Marriott. They were still caught.