That said, the penalty is not just $10k. It's $10k for an unknowing violation, or $100k for a knowing violation that "does not create a material risk of death, serious physical injury, or a catastrophic risk" or a unknowing violation that does cause that, and $10m for if you knowingly violate it and it does cause risk of death or serious physical injury, etc.
I imagine the legal framework and small penalty if you fail to actually publish something can play into the knowing/unknowing state if they investigate you as well.
In general though, it's easier to just comply, even for the companies. It helps with PR and employee retention, etc.
They may fudge the reports a bit, even on purpose, but all groups of people do this to some degree. The question is, when does fudging go too far? There is some gray, but there isn't infinite amounts of gray.
This is to allow companies to make entirely fictitious statements that they will state satisfies their interpretation. The lack of fines will suggest compliance. Proving the statement is fiction isn't ever going to happen anyway.
But it's also such low fine, that will eat inflation for those 12 years.
It's a low fine, but your particular objection is invalid.
But I also understand that you were using hyperbole to emphasize your point, so there's not actually a reason to argue this.