What is spurious about BFL having to respond to unlawful attempts to deny refunds.   BTW BFL doesn't have to respond to FTC investigations they can simply comply with the UCC and offer refunds on uncompleted orders.

BFL saying "all sales are final"* is fine however under the UCC a SALE involves the transfer of ownership of the contracted good (in this case mining hardware). If you take contracted funds and haven't yet delivered** the goods then a sale hasn't yet occurred, you only have a funded sales contract.  A company can't choose to both not complete the sale and refuse a refund on the unfilled sales contract.

So the idea that BFL would be held hostage is silly.  If they are held hostage to the FTC it is only by their own choosing.


* As a contrast here are some legitimate example protected by "all sales are final".
a) a customer waits until BFL ships a product and then asks for a refund because difficulty is too high.  
b) a customer refuses delivery of a BFL product (and hasn't prior to shipping requested the order be cancelled).  
c) customer receives a minirig and realizes (due to lack of customer due diligence) it is too loud or hot and wishes to have it returned for a refund.
d) customer has a BFL single "die" after taking delivery and it is outside warranty period (or BFL isn't offering a warranty)

In these examples BFL would be legally allowed to refer the customer to "all sales are final" clause and the customer would have little legal recourse.  If they didn't like the policy they shouldn't have purchased the product.

** In most cases shipment by the seller to the buyer by a common carrier constitutes a transfer of ownership.  The seller does not need to wait until physical delivery to consider the sale completed.