Paradoxically, if they all were to cooperate and agree on what to consider tainted, it wouldn't make sense to have more than one surveillance company in place. If it were possible to interpret objectively what is going on in the blockchain, we wouldn't even need a single surveillance company (I am talking about businesses that have to hire these firms to comply with AML policies, not individuals making P2P transactions since no sane individual would support the harmful activities of these firms) because individuals themselves could track every payment and prevent money laundering and financing of other crimes.

But we have what we have. Inasmuch as it is physically impossible to interpret occurring objectively, we witness the intense competition between chain surveillance firms, where everyone is trying to sell their own subjective interpretation of transactions in the blockchain. Clients of these firms aren't seeking truth or justice, nor do they interested in protecting the rights of their customers. They simply need protection from regulatory pressure and chain surveillance firms kind of provide such protection by selling convenient and convincing interpretations both to businesses and governments.