When the FTC says "we're cracking down on online reviews" with things like this the average Joe gains more confidence in them, so yes, the doing nothing approach is actually better IMO.

Rules degenerating into infinite whack-a-mole is a strong (though inconclusive) signal a mistake is being made. "Let's ban rent increases". "Whoops, now all the landlords are slacking on property maintenance; let's mandate maintenance." "Whoops, now all the landlords have stopped making improvements; let's let them increase rents X% when they spend at least $Y on improvements." "Whoops,..."

So you end up in some new equilibrium. Maybe that equilibrium is better, maybe it's worse, but it's simply not true that it's always better to do something rather than nothing, and pointing out the loopholes in the rules is valid criticism.

Well, I think where we are is having to prove its fraudulent. Agreed, impractically difficult.