It might go so far, as it seems most dexes are in core very centralized, but more plausible scenario is that they need to blacklist addresses to stay alive. Uniswap has done this and i am guessing other relevant DeXes are required to do this also.
I am guessing that some dexes will just get more automated and decentralized enough that they can't be shut down. This would leave most of the AML law responsibility to centralized financial services that are required to freeze money from blacklisted accounts or money from mixers etc.
Blacklisting address, eh? So much for censorship-resistance. I wouldn't call Uniswap a "decentralized exchange", especially when it's prone to censorship. Not only that, but the source code of the project is limited (open source after a few years of each iteration). I miss the old days when we had truly-decentralized exchanges such as EtherDelta and ForkDelta. Ever since Uniswap came into fold, things haven't been the same. Even though there's still a small number of truly-decentralized exchanges, the market is largely dominated by both semi-centralized and centralized players. This is harmful for the crypto industry in the long run. It'll be extremely-easy to enforce regulations at will.
If only developers stopped thinking the money and started caring about decentralization/censorship-resistance, crypto would've achieved its full potential by now. Wasn't the whole point of Bitcoin to eliminate the middleman? I wouldn't be surprised if KYC-compliant "DEXs" emerge in the long run. Most people won't care about giving away their personal info as long as they get convenience in return. It will be a dark future for crypto/Blockchain tech, unfortunately.