If rules didn't cause inconvenience to someone, they wouldn't have to be written.
In my view it's really a separate issue if SpaceX has too many advantages and that levelling the playing field somehow would be useful; allowing companies to grow too powerful does cause problems, and I don't think there's a moral requirement for regulators to be "fair" when dealing with corporations. They are not humans.
The need for that sort of intervention should not keep us from instating otherwise beneficial rules, though.
That's not what I was saying. I was offering an observation, not a critique. I think this new rule is good.
Read the article. It's about deorbiting after mission is finished.
If you have enough fuel on board you're free to keep your satellite for 50 years on the orbit. You just have to deorbit it within 5 after you stopped using it.