Somewhere or other I read an example of protocol design: handling the lint trap in your dryer. One way to do it is empty the trap at the end when the clothes are dry. Another way is at the beginning, right after loading the wet clothes. In a mathematical sense they're equivalent, because in both cases the lint gets removed once per load. But in practice, emptying first is better because the protocol will "work" even if someone fails to empty the trap.
Same situation here. Blaming the card company and the customers and doing all this suing is a lot of work compared to shuffling the damn cards. It's a bad protocol. If they always shuffled, this kind of thing couldn't happen.
Yes, you guarantee the cards are shuffled, but you also add a question as to whether you've shuffled the deck in your favor. A competitor might make the point that they play unopened decks while you manipulate the decks before the game.
That competitor is free to try and capitalize on the expected value of the three gamblers that switch because of it while managing the liability induced by the expected value of the black swan event. In practice, I don't know why a gambler would trust unshuffled decks over shuffled ones. In the end, anybody gambling is a sucker anyway.
Same situation here. Blaming the card company and the customers and doing all this suing is a lot of work compared to shuffling the damn cards. It's a bad protocol. If they always shuffled, this kind of thing couldn't happen.