Wouldn't the license agreement that you agreed to when you installed the software specify any responsibilities of the vendor and define what recourse you might have? Why would government action be needed?
There's a major free-market failure because there's no negotiation over the agreement. There's no representative for consumers pushing back. So that representative needs to be the government.
This is the entire reason for consumer protection laws.
It is great that the government protects consumers. Otherwise, everyone would need to spend hours researching everything before making a rare purchase.
> Otherwise, everyone would need to spend hours researching everything before making a rare purchase
On this issue specifically, these projectors seem to be in the tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of dollars so some research and due diligence doesn't seem that far fetched.
Indeed, which is why people may choose to band together in a bigger bargaining block to improve their position and possibly even achieve greater power than the other party. For example, they could choose to form a single block that represents the citizens of an entire country.
It happens all the time across many domains (look up the Uniform Commercial Code, for more general examples, or laws around vehicle sales).
I have less inclination to be involved in business to business transactions, but there’s absolutely a societal debate to be had around what laws and regulations we have on transactions of software.
Society runs smoother, with more transactions, and this economic wealth, when consumers can assume a reasonable baseline of behavior that is being regulated by the government. If every purchase and every transaction requires deep due diligence there will be far fewer transactions.
The government is not some foreign third actor, we live in a democratic society and as such, the way in which we do things is subjected to the desires of the public.
If enough people consider the government should intervene, then the government should intervene.