Again, once you lose, the adversarial part is over.
Malicious compliance is exactly why good faith is a requirement but not a defense.
Bad faith will get you contempt, good faith will not save you from contempt if you didn't do enough.
Do companies try to skirt this anyway - sure. But they run the risk of a judge finding they didn't do enough, and sanctioning them anyway, even if they didn't have obvious bad faith, or heck, even if they have objectively good faith.
There are plenty of cases where judges sanctioned good faith actors who didn't do enough.
Malicious compliance is exactly why good faith is a requirement but not a defense.
Bad faith will get you contempt, good faith will not save you from contempt if you didn't do enough.
Do companies try to skirt this anyway - sure. But they run the risk of a judge finding they didn't do enough, and sanctioning them anyway, even if they didn't have obvious bad faith, or heck, even if they have objectively good faith.
There are plenty of cases where judges sanctioned good faith actors who didn't do enough.
I quoted McComb in another comment (so don't want to paste it again here), but see https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/336/187/ and friends.
In the end, once you lose, if you play stupid games, you will usually win stupid prizes.
That doesn't mean people don't play, but it's almost always against their lawyers strong advice.
As for jail - you have to distinguish civil and criminal contempt. Criminal contempt can get you thrown in jail, and has different requirements.