Jack Shafer makes a compelling case that "loophole" is more and more often a loaded way people describe any legal behavior of which they disapprove.

I propose a loophole standard:

Before using the word, journalists must be able to 1) cite the law which they believe ought to have prevented such behavior, and 2) present credible evidence that they possess insight into the intent of the framers of the law, such that they can state with confidence that this legislative intent is being contravened.

Not realistic in a printed story, but in the world of hyperlinks, this can be easily done without breaking the narrative.