Doing it by legislation will go in the wrong direction.
The problem is, maybe, most of consumers prioritise other aspects at the time of buying.
If something will make a company more money, then they will always do that thing. If not making products repairable makes them more money they will never do it until they are forced to by law, which is exactly what has happened. In fact, companies make so much money refusing to make repairable products that they've invested huge amounts of money into technology and laws that make it illegal or impossible for users to repair their products which is what brought us to the point we're at now where consumers had no choice but to petition the government to intervene.
We have a bunch of problems (pollution, climate change, privacy...) where the incentives "in the moment of action" (buying, subscribing, choosing a mode of transport) are not great, and so individual responsibility as the sole recipe for change has failed miserably. It's okay for people to say "hey let's collectively through out the oreos."
This is an excellent point. Political forces are market forces.
It would be nice if companies were required to provide information about their products' wear parts, their expected lifetime, whether they're replaceable and what tools are necessary to do so, etc.
I'd just like to be able to see (before I buy) objective numbers for things like SSD write lifetime, display burn-in rate, and battery capacity degradation next to information about what kind of tools I would need to replace them myself, and maybe how much it costs to have the manufacturer replace them, if they offer that service. That way I can decide that maybe I'm okay with a soldered battery, since it will probably last 10 years with my usage patterns and the manufacturer will replace it for $60.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that companies shouldn't be _forced_ to make their products repairable at the expense of other design considerations, but they should certainly be forced to be upfront about it if they don't.
Hyundai left the U.S. market in part because a disastrous reputation made sales difficult.
When they returned, they knew they had to overcome their existing rep. They offered warranties that meant the consumer couldn't lose. Then they proved that their new offerings were industry best at reliability and maintainability. Even today they put their money where their mouth is beyond anything "Detroit" is willing to match. And they have flipped the field. Now it's competitors like GM that suffer rep problems.
Kitchenaid built an amazing rep. More recently they have moved to plastic parts. Their rep will reflect that.
For better or worse, Linux and Windows still feel the effects of decades of reputation.
I can think of one or two times in the last decade I was disappointed I didn’t have it.