Right but then they have to litigate every new fancy attempt to dodge the rules individually, and they don't have the staff or the funding for that.

The Supreme Court has, for decades, been carving down regulatory powers to only exactly cover explicit, specific, literal interpretations of confessional law, so now we get thousands of potential cases that amount to "Stop touching the customer's money" "I'm not touching it, the atoms in my hand are getting close enough to the money to affect it with atomic forces, but nothing can be truly described as touching anything, if you think about it."

Solid fundamental rules don't work if the Court takes every possible chance to redefine every single term to make them not apply.