In functioning democracies, these limits generally arrived at by representative bodies who try to strike the balance between protecting the public good (which would include market efficiency) and allowing private enterprise to flourish and create a robust economy.
The balance arrived at today would likely be outdated in 20 years. And this is by design. Democratic government is supposed to be slow to allow a consensus to emerge - which often takes decades.
Example: social media opened up a new way to invade people's privacy. Laws to tackle that did not, and do not exist. In the meantime, anybody who read Facebook's T&C understood how invasive and abusive that was. Facebook definitely operated within the law, and yet was clearly abusive of the users privacy that was sanctioned from their highest levels.
Do the "users" have a recourse against such bad faith and abusive attempts? Or do I only get to be happy at their share performance as a part of the index in my investment portfolio? Should I get to choose?
Loads of other, often much more egregious examples exist with life and death impact in other old world companies with a more "libertarian" ethos.
Asking businesses to "make sure they're not impacting overall economic efficiency in the marketplace" before taking any action is really too much to ask. How is it fair to expect even a large corporation to consider the impact of their decisions on all stakeholders before taking action?
There are many legal standards that deal with whether a good faith attempt was made or not. Is such a set of standards too much to ask?
e.g. when it is clear that mandatory arbitration is an abusive practice enforced by monopolistic market power in legal contracts, should be corporations be made to pay for forcing that down consumers throat? Note: I'm asking about the "attempt" to erode efficiency of the marketplace here by forcing abusive contract - not the actual content of such contract.
In fact, it's the role of government to gather the perspectives of all stakeholders..... Asking them to do the work of considering all possible interests is unrealistic.
Do you see the dichotomy here?
It is not "unrealistic" to consider corporations as person. i.e. giving them absurd rights of infinite lobbying power is not a problem. But of course, asking them to shoulder the responsibilities and consequences of their actions is unrealistic.
Shouldn't rights and responsibilities be linked? For a real person, e.g. yours truly, they often are!!