100% bug free not required
Many of the commentators on this story don't seem to realize what "material" means in legal jargon. The proposal isn't that software must be 100% bug free. It means that the software developer provides a warranty against "significant or substantial" (ie "material") defects in the software.
Speaking as a professional software developer, software development practices are generally atrocious. Most development shops don't followed even the most basic of best practices when developing code. It's hard to be sympathetic towards my own industry, as I know that it pays the bare minimum attention to software quality. Putting into place an implied warranty that would at least require software companies to address the material flaws in their products seems completely reasonable. A wide range of other industries live with this requirement, and it hasn't apparently crushed their ability to innovate and deliver new products.