I think what you're proposing is that major providers should have either obeyed the law (with all the claimed negative consequences taking place instantly through that compliance) or they should have disobeyed the law and waited for a "case or controversy" to emerge from that decision.
I don't think the court actually wants appellants to disobey the law, so I find it hard to take this argument seriously.
The decision talks about this. The law does not allow for damages, only injunctive relief. So any negative consequences from enforcement would be fleeting, potentially stayed while the actual case or controversy worked its way through the courts. Quoting from page 14:
This rationale for overbreadth adjudication is wholly inapposite here.
First of all, there are no third parties to chill. The plaintiff trade associations represent all the Platforms covered by HB 20. Additionally, unlike individual citizens potentially subject to criminal sanctions—the usual beneficiaries of overbreadth rulings—the entities subject to HB 20 are large, well-heeled corporations that have hired an armada of attorneys from some of the best law firms in the world to protect their censorship rights. And any fear of
chilling is made even less credible by HB 20’s remedial scheme. Not only are
criminal sanctions unavailable; damages are unavailable. It’s hard to see how
the Platforms—which have already shown a willingness to stand on their
rights—will be so chilled by the prospect of declaratory and injunctive relief
that a facial remedy is justified.
Third, the Platforms principally argue against HB 20 by speculating
about the most extreme hypothetical applications of the law. Such
whataboutisms further exemplify why it’s inappropriate to hold the law
facially unconstitutional in a pre-enforcement posture.
(c) If a social media platform fails to promptly comply with
a court order in an action brought under this section, the court
shall hold the social media platform in contempt and shall use all
lawful measures to secure immediate compliance with the order,
including daily penalties sufficient to secure immediate
compliance.
It does appear to allow for something akin to damages. Would an appeal preclude contempt charges?
I don't think the court actually wants appellants to disobey the law, so I find it hard to take this argument seriously.