When regulations exist as a protection racket for entrenched interests like those providing the 52 hours of supposed training, then yes, the regulations need to be changed. The problem with laws is they aren't self-policing; if unfair regulations get passed (often due to legal but dubious campaign contributions), it usually takes a court challenge to throw the bad laws out.
With that said, I'm unsure I agree with Zac on this part:
>Regulators can start by being more open to experimentation and alternative business models. For instance, a regulatory sandbox could give companies the opportunity to operate slightly outside the existing rules while being closely monitored by regulators.
The problem with flexible rules is there's always someone out there who will intentionally abuse the leniency, and there are even more who will unintentionally abuse the leniency.