Your analogy says that the use was incompatible to the original intent; mine says it was outside the scope of the original intent.

So, to see which analogy fits better: Is there a document (issued by someone authoritative) that says that Libor should not be used the way it was (i.e., to set interest rates for non-interbank loans)? If not, then what we have, essentially, is your claim that it shouldn't be used that way, against everyone using it that way.