Because in that event, Alabama was accused of failing to monitor the textbook program and not acting quickly enough when it uncovered a problem.
In the Clinton-Dix case, Alabama uncovered the violation, immediately punished the offending staff member and then consulted with the NCAA on what the appropriate punishment would be for the player. The gold standard for violations such as this is 2-4 games and Clinton-Dix got the smaller end of that range, so that should tell you what you need to know. The NCAA is not going to issue an "all-clear" on a simple player eligibility case if that's what you're waiting on. There's no reason at this point to expect any further action relating to Clinton-Dix.
The Fluker situation is a bit different. But again, teams that discover player eligibility issues after a player has left the institution -- and quickly reports findings, and investigates players still in school who might be affected (like Ed Stinson) -- rarely have any issue downstream. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "but what about Reggie Bush", I could retire, as that's the outlier in this situation. The problem with Bush was a school that was uncooperative with an NCAA investigation, and covered up findings that were later exposed when receipts were found for certain expenditures. Nothing about that case so far is in any way similar to what went on with Fluker and Luther Davis.
I'd also like to note the difference in UA compliance in 2013 and UA compliance in 2007. The textbook graft went back into the Mike Shula years. This is six years later, and UA compliance's relationship with the NCAA is not what it was. The NCAA isn't what it was back then, either.