Exactly they are not liable for providing resources to illegal drug operations because like I've stated, as a result of being a prudent business they were able to produce necessary information that satisfies the public to dismiss any liabilities in the context of intentionally assisting illegal activities.

Your right that the government can only regulate, which is why the link you showed me proves that if landlords are offering to pay for utilities then that IS the arbitration, reiterating for a moment the government can't break the law by removing others rights they can only regulate, the utility companies have a monopoly on their resources and thus are considered a "government" according to the people and ergo as a result must push the burden of liabilities to the landlord or choose not to regulate it at all. Landlords have the right to offer to pay for utilities as such they might want to CHOOSE to not fund/rent to felons. So although i don't have a phrase to describe what tipping point is going on here. I believe that we are in agreement but foresight of "Cases to come" with the increase of homelessness and felons(both too) that the arguments would solidify down as i presented although the status quo says you would be "currently" correct. This is getting interesting.