Nope, and I doubt anyone will until someone does something very stupid and/or evil.
FAA on the line-of-sight requirement: "To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model." I don't see any language supporting this interpretation. Can't see how it could hold up. Seems like they are trying to twist the law into something it was never intended to be.
To establish a precedence, they will wait until they find a nefarious operator so they are more likely to gain the sympathy of the court. Once they get a win, they can then site that case in the future against innocent operators. They won't risk pursuing a case that they might lose (establishing a precedence against their position) and given their sketchy interpretation of Section 336 they have to wait for extenuating circumstances.