My comment has nothing to do with the law.
tl;dr No cognitive dissonance: Corporations vet network users, 99% of homes don't.
You talk about the stuff that all defense attorneys do in the residential cases, then say for some reason a corporation should be better equipped to handle it. Which, maybe there's some relevancy to that, but still the root point is: we're using an IP address to identify a responsible party, which isn't a 100% science.
This also isn't a trial, it's a published article.
I'm applying the same standards to either situation. The way a corporate network is configured (excluding cases of incompetence) gives you pretty solid evidence that AN employee was in violation. You still have no idea which employee, which is why an individual suit like in the residential cases would be highly unfounded. Same standard when it comes to that rule. The only difference is that you can go after a corporation as a cohesive group, whereas you cannot go after a household as a cohesive group.
Like torture, I wouldn't wish it on my enemies. But I do wish it on those who user it on others.
Besides, unlike everyone they've attacked they can make it stop whenever they want simply by admitting an IP address is not user identifying.
Edit: I don't wanna get in an internet fight, dude.
For a start, the company can be unequivocally identified, because they bought a block of IP addresses. The individual cannot, because the specific IP cannot identify an individual.
This isn't cognitive dissonance, and the massive distinction here is that a company is being held to account, not an employee.