The necessary legislation would be passings laws that both:

1. Restricted monopolies and oligopolies and

2. Secured the "right to repair"

If there were a more competitive market, it would incentivize the production of higher quality products to secure more of the market share. And if products were not designed in such a way as to hinder repair, they could be fixed for cheaper than the cost of buying a replacement. This would, in turn, reduce the profit that planned obsolescence brings. These laws have been proposed often and have even passed in some places.

But politicians are richer than their trade and deep pockets weigh heavily on the scales. Everybody has a price, and politicians don't often succeed based on traits of impeccable morality and stalwart resolution to their beliefs.

That sounds great for the consumer. But it makes them less money. The only reason to do so would be if you really care about quality or PR. These are the companies you see in this sub.

Suppose light bulbs cost twice as much but lasted much longer, you would not need to buy them nearly so frequently. Therefore, consumers would spend less money on lightbulbs in a lifetime and the manufacturers would make less money.

Things are often designed to break and force the consumer to purchase new stock. It's known as planned obsolescence.

The only reason to build things to last would be if you cared more about workmanship and pride than economics. While this might be true for individuals, it is almost never true for shareholders and therefore incredibly rare as a company outlook.