"The fine was likely calculated to offset any potential gains they may have made by failing to disclose quotas" sounds an awful lot like what I got out of the analogy made by GP. I.e. it wasn't about saying it was literal theft of goods but that the risk is no greater than the reward and so the worst case return on breaking the rule is you're back to where you would have been had it been followed.

Similarly people referencing Amazon's total earnings aren't necessarily trying to be misleading about how many locations this occurred at or ignorant of more than just the article's headline (some are though, this is always true in a large discussion). Typically said people are just frustrated with all the above and would like to see much higher fines in this kind of scenario so the overall business cares more.

I'm not saying you should necessarily agree with those stances or conclusions, I don't completely myself, but it should take a bit more than what you wrote to brush everyone off wholesale like that.