I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. It is structured to be "independent" as a regulatory body, but it operates under the limits and extent of the statute that created it. It's not structured as a private corporation the way you're apparently thinking, nor is it non-governmental. It is often called a Quasi-Non-Governmental Organisation, but the "quasi-" part of that phrase is doing all the heavy lifting; it isn't non-governmental, it just acts like it's non-governmental when necessary for its role as a regulator. Its purpose is to create and enact regulations, either based on direct legislation, or independently. It isn't a profit-making entity, it has no shareholders, it has no profit centres, no sales, no products, and no income other than the funding provided to it by the state.
It's got legs, I think. I'm getting autistic over definitions because it annoys me that people call it a "private corporation", when it's a state-owned, state-created, state-directed entity that only projects the illusion of independence in order to provide a way to regulate without direct involvement by the legislature or government ministries. That illusion seems to give enough of a wedge for this lawsuit to work.
