I think that people are overlooking a few aspects of the whole right to repair legislation. I see two big asterisks in the whole discussion.
The first one is "product conformity" and how much repair can deviate from the original design. I know that it takes very very little modifications to a design to invalidate any EMC/Intended radiator/Safety/... test for FCC/UL and CE. The producer has to be sure that every product he makes is exactly the same as the one which is tested. He is liable if it doesn't adhere to the same standards. So they have meticulously create internal assembly guidelines on how to create the exact same product, how to open/close the enclosure, how to apply shielding tape,... Just to ensure "product conformity".
How can somebody without proper training do this correctly? And this training is not about if they can replace a SMD resistor or do rework on super small BGA component, that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters if the repairs happens accordingly to the same way a new product is assembled. A repair guy can be very skilled at dissembling and reassembling a laptop, but the main idea here is, did he used the same methodology as they did in the production line? Must that repair guy guarantee "product conformity"? Or is the original producer still liable for the product conformity when a third-party repair has happened?
In my honest opinion the answers to these two last question is: Yes who repairs a product needs to guarantee conformity and he will also be liable if it isn't, No because I as producer doesn't trust that third-party repair. Legislation can't force me to trust nay third-party repair shop that is going to mess with my products. I don't want to take that RISK. If this is true, and I as original manufacture can be hold liable for a nonconformity problem after a third-party repair shop bodged a very low quality repair.
The main questions are, "How much can we deviate from the original tested product such that it still is the same product when viewed from the FCC and CE documents?" and "Who is liable if after a repair the product isn't confirm anymore?"
My experience is that changing footprint compatible components is already borderline, and sometimes requires retesting. Nobody wants to take that risk.
For example, this repair by one of the employees of Louis Rossmann, how can this repaired laptop the be the same as the original ones, so the same FCC testing documents still hold? I see 8 new added antennas. Did he tested that laptop for the particular EMC standard in which the original laptop adhered? What about the intended radiators inside of it? Is it still in spec with the original standard. I don't know, Louis Rossmann doesn't know. Or does he test every Laptop for the same standard as which Apple did in a FCC/UL certified measurement setup?
Source:
Does anybody here want to take this risk to put in on paper that this fixed doesn't have impact on the EMC and EMI performance of that laptop? And also face the consequences(which can be severe) when it does have negative impact?
Or do we want year checkups of all our electronic device, the same way we do for our Car's in the annual vehicle safety inspection? A yearly EMC inspection?
Second issue I have is with the statement that components should be available to the public. For example in this video
that ISL9240 is a customized design for Apple. Apple invested in that part, why should Apple sell you that part? So you can try to repair it and bring it out of conformity and make a whole lot of legal mess when something bad happens after that repair. Also that design or specification to that design is intellectual property of Apple, why should it be open for everyone?
Or are we going to ask TSMC or Samsung for Apple M1 chip or Nvidia GPU chip to repair a board?
That this happens is just NORMAL way of doing business. I design and manufacture boards for a customer, and a customer of my costumer comes directly to me for a replacement board, should I sell it to him? Is it my place to sell a board where I don't have the intellectual property anymore? If I did this and my customer knows about it, I would a serious court case against me, with a very slim chance in winning. Same applies to Intersil. If the original customer, which hold the IP, doesn't want to sell the board, then it is too bad I can't help you.
If I will be legally forced to sell those boards to customers the value of doing design work and contract manufacturing will drop. I think this will render most "Do not compete" void.
These are just some ramblings, but I find this the two major holes in the whole right-to-repair movement. If you can plug these two, it would make the case stronger. But I don't think that this is very easy. Any legislation trying to counter these will bringing unwanted side effects.