Actually, I don't care how much money Bayer makes. If it bothers me too much, I'll either buy their stock or go work for them. (Actually, I did work for them as a pollinator and they treated us really well, BTW).
I also do not begrudge the various companies which produce strips for hive treatments, provided they do not, by getting approved, eliminate access to the base chemical if it is very cheap, then charge excessively high prices for their product.
In the case of dangerous pesticides like fluvalinate and coumaphos, strong arguments can be made for having the chemicals impregnated into plastics with known and tested release rates, however it seems that commercial beekeepers have learned how to acquire and apply these chemicals successfully and much more cheaply -- and many do. The fines, should anyone decide to notice and charge them are just a cost of doing business and may well be cheaper than using the approved commercial product for a year.
The problem is that by adopting off-label application rather than using the approved product, they become outlaws and fall outside the system. They are then unable to level with regulators and even one another at times.
The inspectors and others who should be regulating, find themselves in difficult position and the easiest thing is to look the other way unless forced to confront a specific case. Not only are many inspectors beekeepers themselves, but for the career government employee, good jobs are hard to find, and their job, often performed at isolated locations in the country is much more secure, easier, safer and more pleasant if everyone is friends.
So, what I am saying very simply is that if a company a.) manages to get a monopoly on the legal use of an important and reasonably safe chemical, and b.) abuses that position to squeeze out excess profits, then we have reason to complain.