Thus, while arguing to this Court that the Aqua Dots sample was toxic under 16 CFR 1500.3(2)(c)(i) and 16 CFR 1500.3(b)(5), Spin Master was arguing simultaneously to the CPSC that the sample was not toxic under those exact same provisions. Of particular relevance is that these are not a couple of stale letters written years ago before Spin Master knew the facts — the June 19, 2009 letter was written after Spin Master commenced this case and made its assertions here about Aqua Dots’ toxicity, and the October 17, 2008 letter was written only a few months before Spin Master sued (indeed, the letters bring into question the good faith basis for this case).