I personally would want it see extended in areas where fraud is common. I don't think grocery store fraud is very common, misleading domain names however are exceedingly common and a huge problem so I don't really see what the issue is with extending those expenses.
Mind you someone always has to pay these expenses when fraud occurs, they don't vanish and I would like to see it allocated in such a way that it gives an incentive to prevent fraud, not protecting it.
KYC laws in banking, to the extent that they even do anything anymore, were always for investigations of organized crime. They only work for large, high value targets. They discover that the mortgage on a mob restaurant is getting paid by some "Tony Johnson" so they freeze the account and see if "Tony Johnson" shows up to complain. If there is no such person or it's a stolen identity, you lose all the money in your account because there is nobody to show up and claim it. If there is such a person, now they're building a racketeering case and have somebody they can try to flip. It was never really useful for fraud.
The same thing in most other contexts is useless. There is no equivalent to "money in the account" to worry about losing so people will just use made up names or stolen identities with impunity, and the legal process for proving it's a stolen identity wouldn't reasonably be any easier than the existing legal process for having the domain seized whether or not you know who registered it.
Also, arbitrary foreign nationals can have domains. What do you even expect to do with the information that the domain was registered by Sergei from ScrewYouistan which has no extradition treaty?
Mind you someone always has to pay these expenses when fraud occurs, they don't vanish and I would like to see it allocated in such a way that it gives an incentive to prevent fraud, not protecting it.