If you haven't read Cory Doctorow's Ens*tification, then I highly recommend it. The EFF and Doctorow are of the opinion that when something is too broad, it's hard to enforce.

The EFF's "better" solution is to just cut data brokers off at the knees. Don't let them get the collect it, and they can't use it against you. And I agree we should pursue that approach /as well/. But Doctorow also makes a great point that you pursue from multiple angles at once tackling ens*tification (and monopolies). So while he would want something actionable through specificity (one example, make it required that you can offramp from social media platforms your contacts and messages, thus reducing switching costs), I doubt he'd be against broader approaches as well.

The FTC saying or even implying that they will go after bad actors that break multiple laws/regulations does not mean they have to go after only those, or only prioritize those. I think this is probably a clear example of a dark pattern, a possibly predatory one at that, so it could be worth pursuing by the FTC (you know, depending on the political climate--I, for one, hope for the wrath of Khan, the sequel we need if not deserve). Especially since this case /supposedly/ only involves data harvested within the system and not data brokers. It shows how dangerous and harmful data collection and use can be.

I don't think people should just throw up their hands though and give up, especially as there is no language that says explicitly that dark patterns also need to break other laws/regulations. Dark patterns are, possibly, a form of fraud, and fraud has levels of severity and mitigation. Approached appropriately, from that perspective, I do not think that first more laws/regulations need to be broken.

But, yes, that is an excellent point.