I support this view but I've had a lot of difficulty arguing it. It's similar to tax loopholes- accountants find legal, even if unintended ways to avoid or reduce tax. Government can either close the loophole or let it stand, but the point is that accountants are economically incentivized to find flaws in regulations that can be identified and corrected, so the laws get better. It's a form of arbitrage, and is a feature of a well functioning regulatory system.
Another example is what all the electricity companies were doing in California when deregulation happened. All the Enron tactics of sending power out of state and back in, or bringing down generators to game the prices (this is distinct from the accounting fraud the company was known for, was generally legal, and done by all energy players). The root cause was poor regulation, and energy companies were identifying and demonstrating these flaws in a way that could only happen when there is money to be made. The government response should have been to quickly close the loopholes, but from what I remember, there was a lot of blaming the companies.
It's the same here. People would rather blame an evil company because they are a convenient scapegoat than actually understand the root of the problem.