Companies were, employees were not. That's why this law is necessary. This evens the playing field.

And that's exactly what GP is trying to convey.

I've read GP comment three times now and I don't get that meaning at all. Either they did a really bad job, or (more likely) that's not what they were trying to convey.

I personally understood GP comment as vindicating in favor of the law by implicitly trying to preempt those who might argue that this used to be (and should remain) private information. The counterargument it makes is that it isn't private and that the information asymmetry creates a power imbalance that would be curbed by this law. My interpretation may be wrong though, English is not my native language.

This is what I was trying to convey.

All that was missing was a first clause, "This is a good law because ..." :)

Maybe OP wanted to just present the facts that favour the law, but let the reader decide by themselves if it's good or bad.