Okay, the analogy is not exact, and some software is genuinely different. That's fine. But what I don't understand is why you and others in this response claim

Okay, the analogy is not exact, and some software is genuinely different. That's fine. But what I don't understand is why you and others in this response claim that "it must be okay because people purchase it that way" is a legitimate argument in this context. The idea that the markets can figure out how to build reliable and efficient infrastructure is contrary to evidence, theory or intuition. The actors are vastly asymmetric, information is hard to get by, risks hard to evaluate and judge, many infrastructures are natural monopolies, etc... And a large part of code in companies _is_ infrastructure. In this type of context, people who would individually make shitty purchasing decisions generally support laws that support them in making better decisions (or in not having to make decisions). You do not want to evaluate whether saving 2$ on rent is worth the increased fire hazard of not having adequate fireproofing in the insulation. You sure as hell wouldn't want the company to not be liable if they just installed the cheapest shit they could find and the building does burn down.