I am arguing "following orders" are used as an excuse to be EXEMPT from the law, its a defense. Why would you need to defend yourself from lawfull prosecution if you broke no law?

Its a constant claim in trials where its used as a defense to avoid prosecution, do you see the difference between that and claiming that its what is happening here?

With specific regards to the nazi example, although its just a tiny example of million others more recent, they used "just following orders" as a defense to why it was ok to commit war crimes. So it was even then used as a "it was ok for me to break the law, i was told to do so".

This fitbit thin is NOT an example of "breaking the law but its ok someone told me so".