This changes what, exactly? Are you suggesting that the government act as a free lawyer to everyone asking?

Example: 'Would it be fraud if I bought an Amazon gift card with my credit card and sold it for cash since that would be a cash advance but it went through as a regular purchase?'

Would you expect that the FTC answer that question for you in a binding way?

In a rational world I would absolutely expect the authorities that bind me to answer basic questions about following the rules.

You want to hand judicial authority to regulatory agencies?

I don't think I said that. You seem to be setting up a(nother) false dichotomy here as if there can only be one end of the spectrum or the other, with no grey area or nuance in-between.

What is a grey area for 'makes a binding ruling regarding interpretation of law'?

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to answer that for you in a binding way.

I love it when people refuse to follow the logical conclusion of their own argument and then act like they are being clever when they stonewall with that logical conclusion without realizing what they just did.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that government bodies tasked with such things should be providing you a customer service -- but they are providing society with a customer service and you are treated as a road would be treated by the government, not as a driver would be treated.

Note: by 'you' I mean if you were in the position of a regulated entity.