This has been the status quo. Soldered SSDs, ram, keyboards that die from a speck of dust. It's the lack of oversight that's allowed companies to do as they please.
The market largely self-regulates this. If you want systems with replaceable components built to high quality standards, they exist, but there are costs. They might costs more, not be cutting edge, not have the nice integrated form factors. But plenty of third-party-reviewers, brand reputation from customers, and fierce competition reigns in much of the worst practices of industry. But things move fast enough that it requires either relying on a reputation for quality or detailed review to get what you want. And the mainstream buyers don't care about soldered components (at point of purchase). They might care about resale value, but really doesn't hinder the current market too much, given how fast things deprecate relative to repairability. All of this is basically self-regulated by a highly competitive global market.
There are two reasons this often results in a market failure.
One is when the market is too concentrated. So e.g. when substantially all of the SoCs in smartphones are made by just three companies, none of them have to provide adequate drivers or documentation unless the others do, and then their devices become e-waste as soon as they themselves stop updating the binary blob drivers for newer kernel versions, because the kernels the old blobs are compatible with have published security vulnerabilities. A better solution to this would be to break them up / stop letting them buy each other, but state-level governments have little ability to break up multi-national corporations and national governments have failed to do it, so here we are.
The other is when the rule is to protect customers other than the original purchaser. In many of these markets one customer buys the product new, with a warranty, and then sells it to someone else when the warranty expires. The original customer doesn't care about repairability because all their repairs will be under warranty, and may not even care much about resale value because they're affluent, so the OEM can sell them a device that isn't repairable. But that screws the customers in the second-hand market who need to make out-of-warranty repairs, and it's those who the law is trying to protect.
I think you mean to say the market is "supposed to" self-regulate this.
People don't notice early enough that it will cause problems, and they don't have equivalent options available that are more repairable but only marginally different in price and capability.
Brand reputation reigns in "the worst", but pretty bad things still happen, and being unrepairable and non-upgradable isn't "the worst" so it keeps happening.
> being unrepairable and non-upgradable isn't "the worst" so it keeps happening.
Because it isn't collectively valued relative to other things, like have the most performant device. The bundle of things people value includes repairability ... but not that much. As I said, you can buy repairable and upgradable system, they just tend to be last-generation tech and cost more. Buyers just don't value it more. But clearly they value it some, which reaches that equilibrium of reigning in the "worst" as you say.
The price premium for those niche options is orders of magnitude higher than it would be in a highly competitive market. People avoiding those options makes sense. The market is not competitive enough to consistently offer moderately important things like repairability in an accessible way, especially because it's hard to tell at a glance. The market is failing here.
If it was there at a fair price, lots of buyers would pick it.
But because the actual cost is quite low, we can have a good outcome by forcing it on companies, to also fight their perverse incentive to make disposable hardware.
> If it was there at a fair price, lots of buyers would pick it.
I don't think this is true. Lot's of folks on a forum like this would pick it. But the social norms around repair have degraded significantly (in large part no doubt, to it not being a cost-effective option). But my main point is that it will take more than just availability. And thus there is no market pressure, so it doesn't appear to me that this is indeed a market failure, instead it looks like the market responding to the demand.
Let me illustrate further, if a top provider of electronics and appliances, but not fully market dominate in many niches, say LG, pledged and followed through on their pledge to ensure the repairability of their products, and remained price-competitive, would they gain significant market share over their competitors? In phones? In appliances sold at a big box store? Or would people choosing an Apple device, or GE Fridge still choose those options because of features and market clout and ignore the repairability? I predict they'd gain some marginal sales, but really wouldn't incentivize change amongst their competition.
Now there are markets where the dynamic is different. Farming equipment, where there are some strong challengers to Deere and one of the things they sometimes use to different is repairability. There the market failure I'd be concerned with is the vertical alignment of dealers with service.
