[dragonwriter]

> Part of my point, that I did not make clear, is that this law came into effect January 1st. A 3 month turn-around between something becoming illegal, and a "settlement" being reached, feels awfully fast to me, and implies that everyone involved was actually trying to follow this new law.

Not really, I’d say it more implies:

(1) regulators were ready to start enforcement, at least of easy cases, on day 1 (unsurprising, as non-emergency laws in CA have a significant delay between passage and going into effect, both to prepare for enforcement and to give people subject to them sufficient notice to comply), and

(2) Lambda either didn’t want to comply or was lackadaisical (or they would have stopped before the law went into effect, since, again, there was notice) and

(3) the violation was open-and-shut leaving no room for denial, it was settle or lose for Lambda, with no upside for fighting.