Selling to the professional or business-to-business market doesn't actually make a manufacturer immune to product liability lawsuits.
In order for a company to be able to defend itself against a product liability lawsuit, it must prove that they strived to achieve a design that is reasonably safe for its intended uses, including reasonably foreseeable alternate uses and even misuses. This is hard to do, because in court, the argument will typically devolve to asking for the product to be "the safest possible." Basically, the plaintiff's lawyers will try to hold the manufacturer responsible for "foreseeing" even completely crazy uses and misuses of its product that resulted in an injury.
The goal of making any product the "safest possible" is obviously impossible - it would result in a product so dumbed down that it couldn't be used for its intended purpose. Instead, the courts look at how the company actually determined when to stop making the product safer.
So, what is actually considered a "job well done" in terms of safety - that will stand up in court? Basically, the manufacturer must prove they became familiar with how the product is actually used... by contact with customers, data from field service visits, and other means. They must document and analyze the reasonably foreseeable uses and misuses - including analysis of the potential market for the product, the abilities of the expected users, understanding how the product would be used, and the environment to which the product will be subjected. Even factors like the life expectancy (and recyclability) of the product, and the frequency of repair and replacement of parts and the impact on safety, are important to demonstrate.
Seen in this light, naturally, the work and analysis you would do for a consumer product being used at home is completely different to the one you would do for a product aimed at a professional environment - even if the product itself is exactly the same.
The following is complete speculation, but it rings true: Keysight probably hasn't done the necessary homework to be able to sell their products directly to the consumer market without taking on excessive legal risk. They might have concluded that it is too expensive to do that for the additional sales they would get.