Started to try to find this case from the 70s after the "right to repair" item. The case if I recall correctly went some along these lines.
A shop machinery manufacturer built a mill and sold it in the 1930 to a customer. The customer later modified the mill to suit its needs. The mill manufacturer later went insolvent as did purchaser one and the mill was sold as part of the proceeding. The new purchaser made further modifications to the machine. Meanwhile the successor manufacturer of the mill was bought out by another corporation seeking new markets. At this point we have a mill sold twice and modified after each sale with the original manufacturer long gone. A product liability suit was brought against the firm that purchased the remaining assets of the firm that went insolvent. The plaintiff won and won big. So Joe "I Don' Needa Manual" fixes the equipment and in the process disables a safety device as part of the fix; it is not Joe going to court but the company that built what Joe fixed. What is a preventative action against this? Make it so the maker controls how the equipment is altered.
Consider Taxifornia A.K.A. California where that combine is regulated by CARB (California Air Resource Board). CARB only permits pre-approved modifications. It was more likely CARB that killed the right-to-repair bill in the legislature rather than Apple and kin. In the automotive field exists a large underground market of computer to change a vehicles acceleration, torque, and horsepower. CARB when where it can goes after these sellers and prosecutes. These computers may be legal elsewhere but not in their jurisdiction. Find me any policing agency that wants their work made more difficult and ypu've found the village idiots.
You want your smart communication system repairable, then it shall be built with discrete components. When you need a dissecting microscope to see the traces it not likely that you will have much success when your kit is 00Phillips and a 0.5 Torx to remove the cover and your 100 watt solder gun covers half of the components that you need afore mentioned microscope to read the part numbers. Joe starts his fix, destroys equipment, sues because the directions that weren't read were not correct. The bottom dwellers win again