Don't know why this is downvoted, I have endlessly heard corp lawyers say this to my face while I worked there.
I have had a "popular" open source library I contributed significantly to campaigned by Microsoft to change the license to MIT, and the founder and creator decided to relicense without getting any sign offs because they felt that nobody would get mad enough to sue them.
The only thing stopping a commercial product from using copyleft software is themselves, not the copyleft.
Lawyers entire job is to make convincing arguments for any position you want, by artfully speaking only true facts, no matter what the position is and no matter what the facts are.
Of course a lawyer can and will say that you "can't" let any gpl software pollute the companys product "because the gpl prevents it", instead of saying that the company doesn't want to pay the license fee for the software.
The facts of the gpls terms may be true, and the lawyer may present them for their argument, but that still doesn't make the overall assertion true.
They can use gpl software all they want. They just don't want to. And good for them. That is better than simply stealing it which many do.
It's also merely an assertion that "most" open source software uses apache/mit/bsd wthout some numbers and citation. But that sentence could be parsed more than one way. They might have only been saying that most of the projects that use apache/mit do so for commercial compatibility reasons.
Corp lawyers job is to derisk and protect the company.
Strong copyleft risks converting private IP into something that must be shared publicly. This is what these licenses are designed to do. Blanket bans on specific licenses makes sense because they don't have the time to evaluate every potential case or usage
How many of the copyleft projects actually have a commercial offering or paid support plan?
Who said anything about a commercial or paid support plan?
The price the corp doesn't want to pay isn't money.
There are no potential edge cases to worry about if you aren't trying to live on renting copies of the same software to many people in the first place. Then you can live it even greater safety with no need to even audit anything.
I have had a "popular" open source library I contributed significantly to campaigned by Microsoft to change the license to MIT, and the founder and creator decided to relicense without getting any sign offs because they felt that nobody would get mad enough to sue them.