Honestly, I can't see how the FTC can do much about this without either a Supreme Court ruling or federal legislation banning the licensing of software. As long as software companies (including Stardock, however differently they address DRM) can legally license software, they are free to put whatever limitations they feel like on that license. Even Stardock would be violating consumer rights right now if licenses didn't sidestep the first sale doctrine. Anything preventing you from selling used software (which Stardock's update policy technically does) violates first sale. At present, tacking a EULA on the software neatly avoids this issue.
Until buying software is legally the sale of a good, consumers are going to be victimized. The FTC might be able to up the threshhold of consumer notice required to make a license agreement (must sign before purchase, mandate return policy for not agreeing after purchase, whatever), but they can't end the practices that are currently pissing so many people off.
The idea of a developer securing their product is fine with everyone, other than hippy pirates. It does become a problem, however, when certain "copy protection" mechanisms can damage your operating system or your hardware itself (Hello, StarForce!). At that point, a line needs to be drawn.
If a studio wants to copy protect the A-Team Collection that's fine. It's not so fine if it sends Mr. T over to punch me in the face to make sure I don't try to burn a copy.
