That is the whole point of this thread and the lawsuit that was filed.

Then why do they continue to call it a muzzle brake in their lawsuit?  Call it what it is(a baffle stack), win the lawsuit, and force the ATF to allow me to buy replacement springs for my 762SD.

Have you read the lawsuit????

It is a muzzle brake. They call it that because it is that. Their whole point is that until it is built into a suppressor it is simply a muzzle brake. This is the case that could allow you to buy new baffles or parts for your can.

Because it's not a baffle stack until it is enveloped by an outer tube.   The issue is not whether or not it's a "baffle stack," it is whether or not it constitutes the legal definition of a "suppressor."  

Until then, it is a permanently attached brake.  All of their marketing materials claim it to be that, and they will be able to scientifically prove it functions as one.  It has three functions that I can see:

1 - Reduce muzzle climb.  Fulfilling the design and mission of a muzzle brake.

2 - Mitigate recoil impulse.  Fulfilling the design and mission of a muzzle brake.  

3 - Extend the barrel length past the 16" limit.  A typical industry technique used for the past 30 some years on many firearms that use shorter barrels but are sold as a rifle.  

All that's required for it NOT to be a suppressor as defined under law is ONE other function.  That's three so far I can find.  

It's gonna be funny to see a muzzle brake for sale consisting of titanium K-baffles all welded together.  

Any update on the status of the lawsuit?