I'm guessing the argument is that if the cost that the customer bears for such regulated audits is greater than the refund they get from it then the customer actually lost money.
That sounds kind of like me complaining about the cost of my car insurance because for 10 years I didn't have any accidents.
Seems difficult to know the benefit of such regulation without hindsight.
Secondly, businesses face market pressures to provide low cost to customers (isn't that the whole argument for the free market?) therefore passing the cost to the customer should be weighed against other potential inefficiencies -- they might even have to take a smaller cut of profit!
Funny how so many people can never justify the cost of doing business when it comes to protecting consumers.
