ambiguity

Ack. The SFC should really have been clearer on this from the beginning.

The judge has also mentioned it in his ruling:

> Plaintiff’s interrogatory response can be reasonably construed to include the issue raised in the motion.
> Moreover, Plaintiff has chosen to oppose the motion on the merits rather than concede the issue of duty
> raised in the motion, indicating Plaintiff alleges the disputed duty applies to Defendant. Moreover,
> Defendant cites paragraphs 116 and 118 of Plaintiff’s FAC and the testimony of Plaintiff’s witnesses
> which have asserted the existence of such a duty.

Which doesn't stop SFC from writing "Unfortunately, Vizio's motion is likely to confuse the public" in their blog post, even though the ones causing this confusion are the SFC themselves.