Your response is still completely ignoring the problem of identifying the offending devices. When all you have to go on is a spoof-able possibly dynamic IP addr

Your response is still completely ignoring the problem of identifying the offending devices. When all you have to go on is a spoof-able possibly dynamic IP address, and the device is probably behind NAT anyway, good luck tracking it down or knowing what it is, in enough cases to prevent you from making more than a small dent in the problem. Then even once you know what it is, that doesn't tell you who the owner is. Then even if you find the owner, that doesn't tell you the retailer or the distributor. By the time you find the distributor, the device will be obsolete anyway and replaced by the next generation of bad devices. Your way may have worked in the past when the harm was felt directly by the consumer who knew who the retailer was. But now, the harm is inflicted on remote parties who have no inkling about the source of the harmful devices. So your argument has a huge hole in it.