With the commentary it seems to make sense to me. The "law" of patticasamuppada is just something that can be said to be stable.
Of course you wouldn't say that that "law" is some kind of ontological thing, just like you wouldn't say that the laws of physics are some ontological existing thing. It's just that the patterns of causality are repeatedly observed to be stable. You drop a ball again and again and it falls. You observe death again and again and it is conditioned by birth.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta
Tārakā timiraṃ dīpo māyāvaśyāya budbudaḥ supinaṃ vidyud abhraṃ ca evaṃ draṣṭavya saṃskṛtam — A shooting star, a clouding of the sight, a lamp, An illusion, a drop of dew, a bubble, A dream, a lightning’s flash, a thunder cloud — This is the way one should see the conditioned — Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā
I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14