Regulatory failure caused by overlapping regulations is ubiquitous, with examples in all jurisdictions across a range of disciplines. Overlapping regulation can be problematic. It obscures policy objectives and hinders the development of effective and clear regulation. In addition, regulatory overlap can inflict real costs on businesses through repetitive inspections and data collection efforts. It is particularly burdensome when agencies issue conflicting rules with inconsistent standards. Recognizing that regulatory overlap exists and is a problem provides the context to this program of research. Our research project was an exploration using a systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) method to better understand the way regulatory failure, caused by overlapping regulations, has featured in academic literature. The SQLR method was chosen as it employs a systematic process to consolidate a sample of literature, and quantitative measures to draw connections between different academic sources. Ultimately, our research concluded that the literature does not provide clear prescriptive principles for reducing unnecessary regulatory overlap. This begs a question as to whether more research is needed in this area, or alternatively whether the complexities raised by regulatory overlap are not reducible to general principles.