Scalia wrote an excoriating dissent. He was really pissed off. (and correct, IMO)
Yes, it was Scalia who made it clear he thought it was a "Rubes Goldberg Machine" set-up (I think all the Justices felt that way) to get "around" the law, but to Scalia's credit, his dissent was that it was not for SCOTUS to invalidate a "legal," but an ethically questionable, business that was the Areo model because it was the role Congress to address if the business met every test applied from every other Court and also passed the tests in the minds of ALL the Justices.
FWIW, While I LOVED the idea of Aero, and I LOVED the idea because it was truly LEGAL, I did believe that it was unethical--not illegal--for Areo to charge any amount of money for the "Basic" service of streaming the OTA of your choice within your DMA because Areo would be making money when they were not paying anything to the broadcasters. The basic stream should have been--for ethics and even better legal footing--of NO CHARGE. Of course, Areo had its DVR trade-up plan, which has costs and Areo would be providing DVR as a service that would be designed to make a profit, which would be OK by my standards because such DVR services are LEGAL to provide at a cost to the consumer that is NEVER shared with the broadcasters and content owners such as a cable company offering its DVR services using its servers and providing SEPERATE and PRIVATE access only to the home subscriber while making some money with such a service, and all courts have found this arrangement to be legal.
Yes, I know there are arguments to be made that the DVR service of Areo would only have value because it access OTA broadcasters as the content, but I personally feel that it would be fine for Areo to provide the DVR services for a fee ONLY if Areo provided the NON-DVR basic level stream FREE of any charge. That would be the only ethical way of providing the Areo service in my view.
The Areo case is good example of technology outpacing the law, but it is up to the law--in this case the US Congress--to catch up to the tech and business model and legislate it. But the idea that Areo was making money with broadcasters' signals while Areo was not paying the broadcasters for it, just left a sour taste in the mouth of the majority of SCOTUS who thought they would just "fix it" with a decision that makes big leaps in assumptions. After all, there was no classification as to WHAT Areo was under the law. It wasn't an MVPD under the law, but SCOTUS majority seemed to think that if it is kind of like and MVPD and had attribute here and there, well that is close enough to leap to the conclusion that Areo was an MVPD, and therefore, should pay the broadcasters because it just doesn't seem right. But a court shouldn't rule on what doesn't "seem" right, but on the law that is CLEAR even if the law CLEARLY lacks a definition for what sort of service Areo is, exactly. Areo was unprecedented, so how can SCOTUS call it an MVPD, when it is NOT an MVPD? This unprecedented Areo business requires Congress to define it, not for SCOTUS to define and legislate.