Well it's not the regulators who make the decision and set the precedents, it's the judges. Regulators are currently trying to figure out, to the extent existing precedents are inadequate, how to extend by analogy the existing precedents to the new circumstances in such a way as to convince a judge to extend the precedent. This is how a common law system is designed to work.
Technically, under the (controversial) doctrine of Chevron deference, the regulatory agency’s view has significant weight, but they do still have to convince a judge that their interpretation is reasonable.
To be fair, It's totally reasonable that regulators/judges come come to the same conclusions that you make in your post, I just hold more cynical views as to how they arrive at those conclusions.
