Why is it a settlement, were the regulators not sure that they violated the law and sought compromise? It sounds like "Lambda School agrees to comply with the law" which implies that doing so is optional.
The goal of regulation is compliance. Especially for new laws where the meaning may be unclear. Since the permanent harm is minimal (anyone who didn't know their loan was dischargeable, now knows and can discharge it), the informational update solves the problem.
Obviously if the defendant did not agree to comply with the law, there would be no settlement and the case would be pursued further.
More or less, yes, the regulators have a heavily bureaucratic process that's far more legally rigorous for dealing with large corporate entities and their legal teams than something like a municipal health inspector.
Obviously if the defendant did not agree to comply with the law, there would be no settlement and the case would be pursued further.