While I support more consumer protections, the Consumer Council's criticism is unwarranted.
1. In the same article, Consumer Council criticizes UA as well (the case of HKG>GUM becoming HKG>HNL>SFO>GUM). However, Consumer Council did not do a fact check, i.e. UA does not fly HKG-HNL, and simply published whatever it thinks. The actual fact was UA asked the impacted passenger to be rebooked on HKG-SFO-HNL-GUM.
2. Many airlines establish compensation policies in light of the law. Because Hong Kong has no such law, I would imagine CX does not have one. Then why would its staffs know if there is none?
The whole article is more like a fiction.