|I think it would be more correct to say that regulators often write unenforceable quid pro quo language into regulations, with a predictable outcome.|
Might consider shifting a bit of the blame, or even most of the blame, to the regulators. They get what they give.
It isn't even necessarily the case that a given company itself made any promise, they just saw the language as unenforceable (whether by design or by ignorance) or inane, so they stayed silent on the matter, knowing it wouldn't matter in the end.
Why focus on companies? "People" will often agree to conditions they know aren't plausible, in exchange for getting what they want.