> One reason being that then you have a strong financial incentive to "whistleblow" on things that are less clear-cut, making it likely that (a) you'll eventual

> One reason being that then you have a strong financial incentive to "whistleblow" on things that are less clear-cut, making it likely that (a) you'll eventually harm innocent people in the process, and (b) you'll inject too much noise/unnecessary work into the system. It's not like a whistle blowing claim just results in enforcement action without investigation. The claim gets investigated by the relevant agency first, and then if and only if it is found to be justified is an enforcement action taken. That enforcement action can then be challenged in the courts, too, if the entity in question perceives the agency to be in the wrong. I don't think there's much risk of whistle blowers significantly harming innocent companies here.