Judge Kozinski waxes poetic about the importance, but danger, of credit reporting services in this dissent. An interesting confluence.
The last sentence is also funny, in a crazy (but classic Kozinski) way. It argues for a liberal result -- stronger judicial regulation of the credit reporting industry -- with the typical conservative argument (focusing on an increase in price to consumers that results from regulation) by asserting that unless we regulate a little bit (e.g., here), Congress (e.g., liberals) will backlash and regulate even more, thereby driving up costs.
It's the "bad is good to stop more bad" argument well-known to us debate types. But rarely have I seen it in a judicial opinion. As I recall, the argument similarly went that a nuclear war would be good because it would forestall the development of doomsday weapons that would obliterate Earth.