If you did that, and no error handling was implemented in the IoT device, it would merely result in a non-event that no one knows about.
In this specific instance, the author is doing the right thing. The developer will see truncated messages running through.
In the end it is a question on desired semantics. The semantics of the operation in question is obviously to truncate and process rather than fail.
(I actually agree with you, I think it's a bad rule of thumb. I prefer Fail Fast (and loudly)).
What makes you think that the API described in this post would be subject to those kinds of legal and/or regulatory requirements?
Could it be the case that the author knows prima facie that no such requirements exist for their service?
If I target use cases that prefer truncation of messages to errors, then surely it's acceptable for me to build it that way, right? I'm not saying it's a good idea in general. I'm saying it can be acceptable in the appropriate context.