> Why should they be forced to stop making a product at a price customers enjoy?

When you ignore all the objectionable parts, it sure makes consumer protection look unreasonable, doesn't it?

Besides, the ultimate price consumers pay isn't any lower - it's just hidden, delayed, and probably higher.

Let me ask you - why shouldn't citizens be allowed to collectively bargain, expressing their terms in the form of legislation? If companies don't like the terms, they're free to sell their products elsewhere.

Before we jump to legislation, perhaps we can try to collectively not purchase products with such issues? A marked drop in sales figures immediately following a business decision would seem to me to be a pretty strong incentive to reverse it pronto.

We literally can't. Boycotts rarely work, because keeping up with what should be boycotted and why is a full time job, and people simply don't commit to it.

Printer ink still comes with DRM, as do tractors, and smart TVs still spy on us. If it were as simple as collectively not purchasing these products (without using legislation as a means of organizing this not-purchasing), these issues would have been resolved already, instead of getting worse.

> Boycotts rarely work

Not that I disagree especially with the examples you have provided. Maybe I'm not talking about an 'organized' boycott in that sense. I'm more talking about individual purchasing decisions. It seems somewhat Kafkaesque that I can call my congressperson to request legislation to stop a business practice relating to a product that is voluntary, non-essential and crucially, that I am still willingly purchasing!