Right to Repair legislation does not make any demands of product design — at all. It is about requiring manufacturers to make documentation, parts, and tools for repair available to the public, as well as prohibiting the intentional disabling of devices that undergo independent repair.
While repairability is absolutely an issue for consumers, independent repair professionals, refurbishers, and ITAD companies/electronic waste recyclers, product design pressures are coming more from environmental certifications that the manufacturers themselves are seeking (such as EPEAT). The life cycle of a device is an important environmental consideration, so the ease of battery replacement is a major factor in those repairability assessments. Furthermore, when devices can't be easily disassembled at end-of-life, they tend to end up in landfills instead of being shredded into reusable raw materials. Battery fires at electronic recycling facilities have been a big issue in recent years.
Right to Repair advocacy is really not a winning business proposition for iFixit. It is effectively inviting OEMs to compete with us directly, whereas they currently cede the independent repair market to us (and some competitors of ours) almost entirely. If OEMs start making their service manuals and repair guides available publicly, and begin selling parts and tools themselves, it could undermine our market position quite significantly. They're already producing service manuals and repair guides for internal use, so they'd incur none of the additional costs iFixit does in creating content. They already have the factory sources for all the service parts they'd potentially sell, and the bargaining power to purchase those parts at a fraction of what they cost iFixit. We advocate for Right to Repair because we believe it is good policy, not because of business interest.