Here is the actual law to which you and others are presumably referring: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/509
In effect, the law makes it illegal for Jeopardy to do three things: (1) give away “special and secret assistance,” (i.e., giving someone the answers), (2) use “persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or otherwise,” to get someone to throw the game, or (3) “To engage in any artifice or scheme for the purpose of prearranging or predetermining in whole or in part the outcome of a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance.”
Paragraphs (1) and (2) don’t apply to what I’ve suggested. My question for you is whether rearranging the board and tweaking the difficulty of the questions constitutes an “artifice or scheme” prohibited by paragraph (3). It doesn’t involve any scheme between any of the players and the producers. My suggestions don’t prearrange or predetermine the outcome. Jeopardy continues to be a bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge. Anyone could come on the show and beat James. It requires no changes to the rules or unfair advantage to any player even if it might have the effect of reducing James’s winnings. So what law does it violate?
For what it’s worth, it looks like the locations of Daily Doubles over James’s run line up pretty closely to historical patterns so I don’t think producers are playing with James that way.