I couldn't believe it either.
The "worldly" lawyer that the WT hired was a pro.... He gave the judges an illustration of a person working at a Coca Cola (?) factory. He asked something like this: 'now, let's say someone comes to work for CC and in the past had been convicted as a shoplifter, is CC going to be obligated, by this decision you are making to "inform everyone working at this plant that 'there is a shoplifter here'. 'It would cost so much money, and if it was a rule, then people would sue them for 'not declaring the shoplifter'..... in that type of style.
He used the "umbrella" idea to affect the judges ruling that all corporations in CA would be effected.
So the WT argued more in the style that IT was a "corporation" and NOT as a "god's channel of communication."
They did not come across as "abhorring child abuse".