More regulation making it harder to produce goods in California / sell goods to consumers. If you want to buy repairable goods, vote with your pocketbook - don't force your preferences on me.
All this proves is that people are unwilling to make a value judgement. To most consumers, having the "highest tech choice" is more important than having a repairable device. To really put one's money where their mouth is with repairability, one would have to show that they value repairability even if it comes at the expense of other things they value.
It proves that corporations can create small monopolies (over repair of their products, etc.), and use their economic advantage for more economic advantage, leading to true monopolies.
I literally cannot vote with my wallet when there is a monopoly. That is the problem here. This legislation is about preventing a company from claiming a monopoly over repair of the products they sell.
This is the same argument made against any environmental regulation. The governments report released the other day showed us those often have a net benefit to society.
The hard truth is that net benefit is a useless metric. "On average everyone is better off" doesn't mean anything to the person who drew the short straw. And even if you think someone 'benefited' from regulation it's meaningless if it's intangible.
If you say that your environmental regulation actually made people healthier then you'd better be able to point to the dropping health insurance rates.
If you say that your new traffic laws make driving safer then you better be able to point to the dropping car insurance rates.
If you say that your 'right to repair' bill made goods cheaper then you better have data that says that the lifetime cost of ownership of electronics is significantly lower and that the preowned/refurbished market is thriving.
==If you say that your environmental regulation actually made people healthier then you'd better be able to point to the dropping health insurance rates.==
Of course the rest of the world doesn't exist in a vacuum, which makes a simple cause->effect relationships hard. In the real world environmental regulations can be making the air cleaner while at the same time an opioid epidemic rages. If opioid costs outweigh air quality savings we won't see "dropping health insurance rates", but it also doesn't mean that no value exists to better air quality. The reverse of your question is: Would health care costs be the same in the absence of air quality regulations?
If it's anything like the Massachusetts law, this isn't a requirement to produce goods that are easily repairable. Per Wikipedia (and the wording in the OP seems similar) "The Right to Repair proposal was to require vehicle owners and independent repair facilities in Massachusetts to have access to the same vehicle diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturers’ Massachusetts dealers and authorized repair facilities."
In other words, the manufacturer can't hold back information but there's no requirement to change designs so that your laptop is easy to take apart and repair.
Enough of the false dichotomy. Regulation is not inherently evil!
Absolutely no one wants to own a product that the original manufacturer takes active actions to disallow them from repairing. These actions are nothing but abusive and wasteful. They are also effective ways to make more money.
Monopoly is not a good thing, or even something that can be "wished away" by spending money elsewhere, because you can't. That's what makes it a monopoly.
These businesses are monopolizing repair, and that is not okay.
