If Brand A decides it's best to not provide Feature X and you __need__ Feature X, then you can decide that Brand A isn't for you.
If anything should be legislated it should be publishing the details about warranty coverage, average cost or repair, most common repairs, as well as turnaround times. Then, with that info, let the consumer make the decision that best fits them.
Yes, but lets be clear, this is not lack of maintainability... this is very clearly _anti_maintainability, there is a big difference.
There is nothing inherent to the hardware design here that makes replacing components impossible, just the addition of this one chip for the single purpose of preventing it.
And it's not surprising, we all know Apple's position on Unofficial or user repair options.
That being said, the arc of my point is, that if there's going to be legislation it should start with information that enables the consumer, not inject Uncle Sam into another problem that it's unprepared and unable to solve.
You’re proposing commanding companies to erect and maintain new and complex supply chains and packaging schemes. It’s a well-meaning proposal. But it will be costly. That will deter new entrants and increase prices in your market. Do this many times from different perspectives and you end up with a towering bureaucracy and sclerotic economy.
For example, if you're selling notebooks, you must be able to provide notebook parts and repair as well for the products you sell.
Context: Imagine dropping your macbook and the screen breaks; You must be able to get it replaced for a "reasonable" price and you must be able to buy a replacement screen to repair it yourself. The seller must provide these services (either by delegating it to a repair or repairing it themselves)