ACMA Formal Warning lacks justification

Here is the newest update from the ACMA vs Hyarchis case:

According to undisclosed but reliable sources, ACMA has been contacted by the Sydney Morning Herald as well as the Communications Alliance to comment on the case and defend the justification of the formal warning.

The given justification on the Warning itself reads as follows: "The unique nature of this electronic address (0411 111 111), however, has not been identified by Hyarchis as one which could be potentially entered by parties who are not the account holder of the electronic address."

This justification is obviously not sustainable, as it would declare all web marketing for mobile products using a mobile number entry mechanism Spam.

Confronted with this fact, ACMA representative Julia Cornwell McKean simply turned around and stated that "the message sent was not a factual message."

???

Hyarchis sent us the whole correspondence, and nowhere ACMA refers to the content of the message, but simply to the fact "Hyarchis has not identified who entered the mobile phone number."

Sounds a lot like authority arbitraryness?