I have inferred that there was an attempt to strong-arm Best Buy (and possibly other settled infringers). That might not be true - it's not set in a context how far the 'veto' situations go. If not true, disregard the following:
Coercion? Is anyone involved with SFLC a parent? Anyone know what 'positive reinforcement' looks like?
It boils down to this: the winning play has to be that non-compliant companies get help to remake their internal processes in such a way that they comply with the licence, then they get help to communicate how easy that is to other organisation with whom they do business.
Trying to coerce, hamstring, or force collusion seems to me to be contrary to the advocated 'freedom' behind the original software projects (not to mention the prospect of skewing market competition and the negative publicity that would bring). You just can't let that kind of bullying go. Perhaps there's a reply which claims 'this is all these corporations know and the only way we can interact with them': don't forget that the opportunity to do it differently is still there and can set an example of the better way to do things that is collaborating with the free and open source software development communities.