I see even less of a basis to grant standing due to willingly acting to perform their chosen work when I read this;

Spiro's testimony demonstrated that the OHC was forced to "devote significant resources to identify and counteract" the defendants' advertising practices and did so to the detriment of their "efforts to [obtain] equal access to housing through counseling and other referral services."
forced? All expenditures were chosen, not forced. Ohc may have felt compelled
based on their corporate goal but they were surely not forced.

Dang, using that argument any hired attorney could argue standing to sue every opposing party along with their client since they expend time and effort to address the wrongs committed by the opposing party that they could have spent counseling other clients.

Of all things that don't make sense to me, this one makes the least sense.