This litmus test is absurd. If more consumers buy products manufactured with child labour, is it "going against the will of the people" to ban child labour? Not in any meaningful way, certainly.
Instead, in the US the DOT or the CPSC (can't be arsed to look up which) says: "every helmet sold must meet this standard of safety", and then backs that up with guns. Now you're free to price-compare, with the assurance that your head won't explode. (Yah: I keep doing it! Sorry. I like injecting levity into serious subjects. Try not to get distracted.)
Consumers, acting as individuals, have negligible influence over corporate behavior, and are easily misled.
People, acting collectively (in this case as a "government", but as other collective organizations, too - including "corporations"), can stand up to other collectives and force them to adjust their behavior in pro-social ways.
Since we see that a majority of customers consistently go with the cheaper option, we know how they feel. So the "better" firm gets outcompeted.
So regulation, you say. But those regulations are set by governments voted in by the same consumers. Their preference for lower prices is clear, and government follows their preference.
Is your suggestion that the government go against the will of the people and apply those pro-worker-coop regulations anyway?