> If company does not want to allow consumer to repair a device- it ought to provide extended warranty to the consumer for a small fee.

I would modify that:

If a company restricts a consumer from repairing a device (either explicitly in warranty policies, or implicitly by producing devices that are hard to repair, restricting part availability, or not having manuals available), then the company must (not should) provide an extended warranty for all damage scenarios at cost.

> devices that are hard to repair

Define easy? (Modern electronics, for instance, is highly integrated, full of miniature surface-mounted components etc., and so the "repair process" might as well be simply selling you a replacement for the whole thing.)

> Define easy?

See the definitions by iFixIt.

Apple already does this, they define _at cost_ as a cost of a new device.

> hen the company must (not should) provide an extended warranty for all damage scenarios at cost.

So would you agree on $1 million fee per customer? (which is what companies would probably ask if you made such law)

It states "at cost" so only the extra costs made for the repair

How do you independently evaluate those costs?

How do you know how much it costs to provide an extended warranty? If it actually costs money, that kind of rule would make devices more expensive for everybody.

I am OK with everybody paying +3% more than few unlucky ones paying another 100% because they received faulty pieces. In EU there is mandatory 2 year warranty for everything (with exceptions like food etc) and maybe extending to at least 3 years could be fine compromise.

2 years warranty is enough to sort out the faulty pieces. Is there no warranty in the US? In any case, obviously that kind of insurance costs money. Why not let individuals pay for it if they want it?

Extended warranty or updates. Past a certain date I should be able to buy future updates for a reasonable fee.

Sounds fair, it takes work to keep software updated.