People write unenforceable contracts all the time. A judge will determine if it's legal when challenged.
A contract manufacturer may find itself in hot water if all it did was re-badge chips.
Manufacturers have been rebadging chips for years, for a variety of valid, legal reasons. Have any of them been successfully sued for this specific practice?
It would depend if the re-badged chips are unavailable during products useful life (or some part thereof).
IANAL but this would seem to appy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc.:
"Majority Opinion [of the Supreme Court] {ISO=Independent Service Organizations}
"... Kodak did not make all of the parts that went into its equipment. It purchased parts from parts manufacturers. As part of Kodak's policy to limit sales of replacement parts for micrographic and copying machines only to buyers of Kodak equipment who use Kodak service or repair their own machines, Kodak sought to limit ISOs' access to other sources of Kodak parts besides Kodak itself, Kodak got manufacturers of its parts to agree with it that they would not sell parts that fit Kodak equipment to anyone other than Kodak. Kodak also pressured Kodak equipment owners and independent parts distributors not to sell Kodak parts to ISOs. In addition, Kodak took steps to restrict the availability to ISOs of used machines."
Apple has also been known for stopping ISOs from re-importing parts from foreign sources.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-screens-jessa-joneswww.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdf page 11:
"A. Antitrust Principles Related to Manufacturer Restrictions on Repair
Manufacturer restrictions on aftermarket competition may be subject to claims under
Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act or Section 5 of the FTC Act. Section 1 of the
Sherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain competition. Section 2 prohibits
monopolization or attempted monopolization by a single entity, as well as by combination or
conspiracy."
A product seller can claim they don't have any facility that does board-level repairs. They simply buy boards in bulk from China and may give you the option to buy the whole board if available. And chuck the broken one in the bin.
And there's very little that any R2R legislation I know of, or that is likely to appear anytime soon, is going to do about that. At some point consumers have to use their buying choices to influence these issues. If the issue of the charging chip occurs so often that we're all talking about it, a mandatory product recall might be the way to go. In addition to, or perhaps instead of, R2R, how about mandated warranties or quality requirements? Or do consumers have the right to buy a cheap POS if they want to?
Or maybe R2R might look like this: (Page 48 of the same FTC PDF linked above)
"2. The European Approach
The European Union has adopted a number of regulations aimed at increasing consumer
repair options in the home appliance industry, which went into effect on March 1, 2021. Unlike
the model state legislation, which would require a manufacturer to make available to individuals
and independent repair shops those parts that the manufacturer provides to its authorized repair
network, the EU prescribes the types of parts and time period during which the parts must be
made available..."