Regulations can make sense for software that could cause physical harm - like the software in an implanted medical device - but most software doesn't fall in that category. The CRA is about "security" not about "physical harm" - they are two different things. Regulations for the latter would likely receive less pushback.
Your distinction is without meaning
A recall was issued therefore there is already regulatory oversight where it counts. The CRA is at best redundant and at worst a prime example of regulatory capture [1].
Just because a recall was issued doesn't imply that there's a regulatory oversight. And even that oversight exists in that particular case doesn't mean it is applicable to other areas.
What it does mean is that you're weak attempt to paint software being exempt because it "doesn't lead to food poisoning" is weak and uninformed at best.
> The CRA is at best redundant
It's not
> at worst a prime example of regulatory capture
Again, it's not.
Just because you engage in FUDing, doesn't make your words true.
First you tried to pretend that software is somehow different because it "doesn't do any physical harm".
I addressed that directly with a very specific example of physical harm.
(Besides, there are many more concerns beyond just physical harm, and my example of food poisoning was just an example that you must follow safety regulations even if you're a "one-person" company)
So your next counter-claim was a non-sequitur that "since it was recalled it means that there are regulations" which doesn't make sense even logically, which I addressed as well.
And the rest is just unsubstantiated claims that the law is redundant at best and bad at worst which is pure FUD.
How's that for good faith argument?
With this, I remove myself from this discussion. Adieu.