>

It has nothing to do with expectation. 
One of the rules of this sub is that top level comments must challenge the OP, and it doesn't seem like you're challenging the OP, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding your post.
Big pet stores are in the retail item business. They should prioritize animal welfare. But if there’s no base rule like a state law on lizard rocks, then we can’t really expect a brand like Petsmart with 3% annual revenue from animals to make that a core business priority. They want to sell dog leashes and lizard rocks, not actual lizards. Fish food, not fish. That’s 95% of their business, so the 4 high school clerks working a shift can’t be expected to care for the fish like a zoo employee would be expected to. (Probably better financials from their 10K elsewhere) >

How does this challenge the OPs view? 
Whether or not taking sufficient care of animals is economical for a bit pet store doesn't change whether or not they are abusing animals. >

I didn’t suggest it’s economical. I said it’s a big expectation from a store that gives the appearance it makes money from selling betta fish. The financials explain it does not: it sells fish food. It’s expecting a lot from a dog leash salesman.