Isn't it normal to be vague when writing laws in a "common law" system like the US? I thought the practice was defended with the notion that judges will have to interpret the spirit of the law, having some flexibility with unforeseen cases. It has its pros and cons, but it seems to be an explicit design decision in the system of laws.
Well, this isn't that. The interpretation may vary slightly, but there are definitely established meanings for "platform" and "utility" for a judge to work from (though "platform" might be only the plain-English meaning, "utilities" such as power and water companies are a regulated category which can be used for reference if nothing else).
