I'm not concluding my opinion on either side of this right now. I just am lately skeptical of the number of laws and movements we have that are justified "because I agree with this particular outcome" but aren't sustainable principles to run a society off of (without constantly having to create exceptions). Even if I like that I'm not being "gouged" in NJ, is the principle behind this right?
Is the principle, "you shouldn't be charged for something that a company has already built and put in the product"? Or "we don't like paying for something that seems like you should physically have control over"?
If it's the first one, how does this not apply to subscription models in general? Tons of companies have stuff they've already built and put in what the customer could conceivably already access without charge. Printer ink, locked CPU cores, how about private areas of venues that you have to pay extra to access? Software that a company has already developed but doesn't "cost them anything" to keep offering to you aside from a login barrier. First class seats on airplanes. Doesn't this all follow the same principle?
On the second principle, why is this specially deserving of interference / protection in what customers are willing to pay or tolerate? Why don't they pass a law about not being "gouged" on extra storage on my iPhone costing $100 more? The memory is already in there, why should I be forced to pay extra to unlock it? (or similar analogy)