If opposing a regulation successfully will ultimately cost less than complying, they will do so. Otherwise, they will cave in. Its already been observed that if paying the litigation costs and settling lawsuits costs less than retooling their factories to correct a dangerous design flaw, they will do that, too. Although downright criminal activity to eliminate opposition (such as bribery, extortion, character assassination, or even murder) is rare, they are perfectly ready to do that too if they think they can get away with it. They figure in the bad press they get if caught actually breaking a law in their calculation, but if they can minimize the publicity exposure they are perfectly willing to take a chance.

You know how it works. You don't actually write a memo ordering a subordinate "Do this and do it now!". You say something like "I don't care how you do it, just take care of it.", while playing golf. Or, "If you can't figure out how to make this problem go away I will find someone who can." Again, the message is delivered verbally, untraceably, with full personal deniability.

Those who deliver do very well. The positions with the big bucks and high promotion potential are also those which have a lot of risk, personal responsibility, and "individual initiative" associated with them. Putting yourself in a position to take the fall pays very well. And in an organization like that, everybody has the goods on everybody else.

Government bureaucracies work in the exact same way. Think Teapot Dome, Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Bill and Monica and Bridgegate. Only a free and independent press, and a strong judiciary, can minimize this kind of adventurism, but they never can eliminate it entirely.