Do you think your mother, your uncle, your niece, your sister would do the same? I don't really buy that even 1% of the consumers will care about this label to the point of voting with their wallet on that basis.
Manufacturers that believe the same thing as you can just opt to forego placing the FCC's mark on their packaging. We can just test the theory in the marketplace. If you and those manufacturer's suspicion is correct, then the mark will just fall by the wayside unused.
The only way manufacturers could be harmed by the requirements to obtain this mark is if consumers _do care_.
So, where's the harm in testing your theory against mine? It's very similar to the Energy Star program run by the EPA, which is a voluntary mark which is now on many appliances sold in the United States.
It points to the question of why they would go for something so meek when they have the power to be effective. If the FCC displays submissiveness to the markets they're supposed to regulate then I want a reason for it, because I'm worried they're in some guy's pockets
Second issue is a cybersecurity label from a trusted source is already something that can be issued, by, say, the ISO consortium. You don't need the FCC to do that.
Third issue is while the FCC is doing that, they're not doing something else.
Fourth issue is while they're not doing something that works, the consumer still faces the issues that this was supposed to solve!
