Technical defenses are either cat & mouse CSI electronic warfare or shielding the walls+floor+roof+windows of some rooms (e.g. research labs in business, industrial systems, WFH offices, bedrooms) with materials like aluminum radiant barrier, RF window film or expensive drywall (e.g. QuietRock) designed for RF shielding of SCIFs.

Another defense, impractical for most people, is for their house/office to be physically protected by a tall fence that is far enough away from the building to exceed radio range, along with sensors at the fence to detect someone attempting to broadcast into the property. This could be combined with shielding to reduce the necessary fence-building gap.

Regulatory responses: some countries could restrict this technology to high-frequency 60Ghz mmWave which doesn't easily pass through walls. That would at least reduce the social issue of X-ray vision (via 2.4Ghz WiFi) through the exterior walls of existing homes and businesses.

One of the 802.11bf papers proposed an opt-out mechanism where human biometrics could be registered into a giant database and you could ask WiFi devices to unsee some humans. Good luck with that.

Another regulatory response could be to delay approval of Wi-Fi 7 and shipment of Wi-Fi Sensing devices until the WiFi industry pays to upgrade all existing houses with RF shielding, i.e. never. Maybe it would be sufficient to wait until the homes of celebrities and politicians were RF shielded? Let's not forget IP-sensitive and financial business offices with people typing on keyboards. And using combination locks. And...

Some active device equivalent to a mouse jiggler, retransmitting the signal and shifting the phase just enough to create the illusion of constant movement.

Regulation wise we can hope the EU forces us to click through accept popups whenever we walk into a room.