Yes, I don't see this doing much. There are no federal right to repair laws to enforce. And I think that's a good thing as burdening manufacturers with interpreting piles of regulations requiring a team of lawyers to figure out is a sure way to kill small manufacturing start-ups, create moats around big manufacturers that have the lawyers and resources to handle right to repair requirements, and kill innovation.
This looks like a completely generic anti-regulation comment. Have you given any consideration to what specific behaviors would likely be targeted by right to repair regulations, and how that overlaps with the business practices of start-ups and other small manufacturing companies?
Small companies that can't afford lawyers to interpret federal regulations probably also can't afford lawyers to go after customers who don't choose to pay for the premium service plan, and probably also can't afford to devote engineering resources to developing their own hardware DRM systems.
You are seeing it incorrectly. If I buy a thing and then it remains broken because the manufacturer made specific choices, they should be forced to give me my money back.
