Al Haymon created PBC. He pays the networks for all of the time slots and ad space. He then pays his fighters to fight on the card that he creates. I'm assuming he still takes 20% or what ever it is. Right now he is likely in the red, cool....... But isn't the conflict of interest here the fact that Haymon can lower wages for his fighters if PBC never gets out of the red? As a way to minimize losses. And if PBC becomes a huge success then it'll essentially form a monopoly at which point Al Haymon can pay his fighters peanuts like Dana White does. This seems like a scenario the Ali Act was created to deal with. The one way out of this is Haymon can quickly turn PBC into a formal association/league like the UFC. Fighters will still get jerked if that happens but the Ali Act can't be used under those circumstances.
There is a legal term "standing" , which basically is a concept that if you are not a wronged party you do not have the "standing", or, ability to file suit. So someone directly impacted would need to file suit. But thus far, the fighters are being paid well and apparently detailed records kept. You also typically cannot file suit on an abstract concept, like a "potential" monopoly. Basically, someone who has been directly negatively impacted by an Ali Act type abuse would have to file a suit based on the specific harm. Which for a fighter that has been paid well, would basically tank their career, get them blackballed, and likely net no return. Also, given the current focus on other issues... unless there are major rumblings of wrongdoing from some source, the Feds are not likely to spend resources or manpower trying to investigate. Especially given than PBC does seem to be heading towards the league/Assn route