Mainly thinking about this because of some of the comments in this post here, but I do think while what we currently have right now is way too much regulation.
Some examples of 'good regulation' in my opinion would be the existence of drivers' licenses, 'right to repair' laws, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and building codes.
While some notable 'bad regulation' is anything to do with 2A restrictions and the modern health care industry.
Overall, I'm just trying to gauge what is good vs bad regulation.
The type of regulations you're talking about exist to create trust in situations where there is no preexisting relationship between the parties. However, in many cases they needn't be proactive (you must be licenced/inspected/approved beforehand) but could be reactive (if your actions cause harm you will be punished accordingly.) In most cases I think I'd prefer regulations be more reactive on a smaller scale and only be proactive when dealing with larger projects/organizations, but I don't yet have a particularly well defined idea of where the line is where you should move from reactive to proactive.
I suppose a decent example of what you mean is a basic level of bureaucratic requirements and paperwork, maybe some regular inspections as need-be, responses to consumer concerns and whistleblowers, and then of course punitive courses of action for those that are discovered for not only failing to comply with regulations but also managing to cause active harm.
The FDA, at least as it pertains to the food industry, is a reasonably decent example to what's sort of ideal, like Heretic indicated. Although the FDA has been massively dropping the ball on things like baby food and baby formula in recent years, by not actively pursuing reports and instead responding to concern with pure skepticism...