Conversely, hopelessly vague regulation like this ensures that big evil companies just implement ineffective token measures and then spend millions of dollars in court to determine which small tweaks to their small measures satisfy the given judge.

Hiding a "noprocrast" option in settings, and perhaps advertising it once per user with an annoying easy-to-dismiss popup – that sounds exactly like the kind of ineffective tweak that would pass muster, after a few years of legal proceedings of course.

Litigation has got to be the worst way to define new regulations. It's slow, expensive, and uncertain. It's also not as "adaptive" as you claim, because of the power of precedent – big weight given to past decisions. It also unfairly penalizes a small number of entities who have to bear the burden of litigation to resolve the regulatory questions for the benefit of the whole industry – and that goes for both plaintiffs and defendants.

The only reason litigation might look attractive in comparison is that the Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional – both the people in it, and their processes. Maybe that's what should be fixed for legislation to be better. Somehow.