Google used to have a motto "don't be evil"
Who enforces the definition of language? Who demands compliance?
Soon as we go down the path of policing and insistence on one true dogma, we veer into religious holy war type behavior.
Obsession with semantics of syntax is a sort of theism even if the syntax and semantics do not refer to the commonly accepted tropes of a specific religion.
I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV, damn you Odenkirk) so I can't tell you what that means as far as case law for companies getting punished for behaving badly, but in this case, there is supposedly some sort of legal backing for the classification.
Politicians are not interested in assuring such.
Public is busy arguing semantics online; they are not interested in assuring such.
I accept they matter to others but reject such exists as anything but contemporary ethno-objects. Similar to how I acknowledge Christianity exists but am not a disciple of the dogma; I have to accept others believe but do not have to pledge allegiance myself.
Aside from engineering and healthcare, machine operation, with real safety implications, everything else is just parroting and social role-play.
Being a VHS copy-paste of generational semantics isn't the flex you want it to be. Patronize harder though.
But I guess it's easier to make a glib comment than look these things up.