I think this (emphasis mine) is somewhat disingenuous. Sometimes there are no other options, or they have significant tradeoffs (in ways that aren't due to that clause in the EULA).
I think a better phrasing would be something like, "fighting against the ability of EULAs to restrict the buyer's right to repair".
Drawing a parallel to an extreme, to show where the argument comes from: we also don't allow people to sign themselves into slavery, even though in some circumstances people will "happily" do just that.
That requires quite a high level of market efficiency to work. It might work if this was enterprise-enterprise trade, but it is unrealistic to assume the end user will compare (or even read) the long lawyerish EULAs and determine which will be more beneficial in the long term.
I do agree that a specific law can feel like "a hack" and less elegant than a free market solution, but I don't really see how to achieve that here.
https://medium.com/@jlkoepke/we-can-change-these-terms-at-an...
https://web.archive.org/web/20201017150508/https://medium.co...
Until they're the only kind of products left. See smart TVs.
If you don't buy products with these conditions you never once face these problems.
The title really should be: "fighting for the right to repair products I happily bought when the EULA clearly said I couldn't do that"
Maybe stop buying these products and the companies will change their tune like the wind.