Consumer protection laws. Almost every company has known issues with it. But consumers should have boundaries for what's acceptable and what crosses the line. And those boundaries are set by consumer protection laws.
If every wronged customer can sue the seller due to a clear breach of the law, then the seller/manufacturer quickly falls in line and stops being a nuisance to society.
> Mandatory binding arbitration will still be an issue.
No, because consumer laws can outlaw forced arbitration. They usually trump any contract law, so even consumers that agree to arbitration may not be required to go through with it.
For example, in Germany, any arbitration agreements must be separate from the sale/service contract with consumers[0]: "Yet, arbitration agreements with consumers require that stricter formalities be observed: such arbitration agreements must be signed by both parties separately from the main contract to which they relate (section 1031(5) ZPO)". You cannot bake one into the contract to which it relates. The seller may insist the customer signs an arbitration contract, but the sale contract cannot be conditional on agreeing to arbitration, so the arbitration becomes optional rather than forced.
Of course, I understand many countries do not have such strong consumer protection around forced arbitration. This is why more consumer protection is needed.
If every wronged customer can sue the seller due to a clear breach of the law, then the seller/manufacturer quickly falls in line and stops being a nuisance to society.