Well, lots of people have been not-buying liquorice their whole life, but nothing's changing. The market for liquorice candy is alive and well.
Less snarky: if other people still want to buy certain products, manufacturers will provide. But that's not a bad thing. Different folks have different preferences.
Why did you suggest not-buying as a better action than regulation if you acknowledge that it doesn't work? Are you a manufacturer of low-quality IoT devices? People don't prefer insecure devices, they just want convenience and manufacturers are not being upfront about how dangerous these "convenient" devices are. Ergo, regulation.
Not when the consumer doesn't know the trade off they are making. Buying a bottle of colorful poison and drinking it and dying because it looked tasty is not a legitimate preference.
You are being willfully ignorant of the power dynamics and information disparity that exist between manufacturers and consumers. The whole point of the label is to better inform consumers.
So what we need is giant warning stickers on products of which their parent companies don't follow good practices. Kind of like tobacco products.
"Leaks your personal data to unknown servers" Or "Manufacturer typically does not support their products beyond 2 years after which critical features and functions may stop working"