Sometimes legislation being worked out dies because the details really can't be squared with reality or practicality.

I have not seen an example proposal of language for such a bill that didn't invite many, many questions about how it would apply to certain manufacturers or products, and raise all sorts of issues about how it would be implemented, both now and in the future.

Remember that legislation, if it is to be sensible, is necessarily a snapshot in time of some set of principles to govern the future. If those principles are sound, they can be stated in some finite and non-specialist text that an agency can go implement (which is their role to do the technical implementation of).

If the legislation is 1000+ pages, something is being legislated at the wrong level, and something has been designed with too many exceptions, special cases, and opportunities for something to slip through a loophole. Or if it's just one page, how will someone figure out from that ambiguity whether something applies to their product?

Some noteworthy fraction of people are in support (although... a certain minority if asked say they are in support of it, while many others have no idea what the issue is), but when it comes to their purchasing behavior it doesn't seem so.

If you were to state the principles by which such legislation should be designed, what would they be? And if you then look at that language objectively, how many times would you have to ask "but what about...<xyz> issue/consideration"? If you, or the industry, have to ask that enough of a proposed bill, it will not work. You can say, well we'll have an agency responsible for working out these details. Ok, well that's how California has 200+ agencies, all paid government employees.

Not everything is corruption and "influence of big money". Sometimes it is, yes. But sometimes it's that it can't be made a sensible law (for the moment).

---------

I quote some notable passages from the bill that are examples of the above (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...):

Every manufacturer of an electronic or appliance product with a wholesale price to the retailer of not less than fifty dollars ($50) and not more than ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($99.99), shall make available to owners of the product, service and repair facilities, and service dealers, sufficient service literature, at no charge, and functional parts and tools, inclusive of any updates, on fair and reasonable terms, to effect the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of a product for at least three years after the date a product model or type was manufactured, regardless of whether the three-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product.

To be made available at no $ charge? Why? What other publication or service do we mandate people do for no compensation?

This section does not require a manufacturer to divulge a trade secret, except as may be necessary to provide service literature, documentation, tools, software, and parts on fair and reasonable terms.

What constitutes a trade secret? Is it simply up to the manufacturer to declare that something is a trade secret and thus cannot be revealed?

This section shall not be construed to require the distribution of a product’s source code.

What is that defined as? What if the ability to repair is tied very closely to something about the source code which should not be revealed for security considerations?

How about if the parts cost such a price as to make repair uneconomical? How about if the repair requires specialized equipment and training that the general public cannot receive feasibly?

The list of questions goes on and on.