You're completely incorrect about consumer behavior and market regulation, and your example of Nader is a fabulous example.
The Nader-inspired passenger safety craze is directly responsible for the horrendously low average MPG in the USA and all the attendant environmental and political problems. It's also responsible for increased pedestrian and cyclist fatalities (known as early as Pelzman's 1975 study) and may even make drivers less safe.
48 years after his book, despite all the tremendous advances in engineering and materials science, instead of the average vehicle on US roads being sub-1000 lbs and getting 200MPG (very feasible to do considerably better than this for 1-2 passenger cars, c.f. the decade-old VW 1L prototype), the average vehicle is >4000 lb and gets worse than 20MPG, little better than in 1965.
The reason is a curb weight arms race caused by our absurd safety standards. The main way to meet crash test standards when faced with heavy vehicles is to increase your vehicle's weight.
Passenger collision safety involves tradeoffs- among other things, tradeoffs with performance, efficiency, cost, and the safety of others on the road. Nader refused to recognize these tradeoffs. Our current safety laws ignore these tradeoffs, and even if they took them into account, overriding consumers' preferences regarding these tradeoffs will lead to inefficient market outcomes.
If someone wants to purchase a more efficient, less expensive vehicle, the government shouldn't stop them just because it does slightly less well in collision tests. Consumers are perfectly capable of rationally choosing how much they're willing to trade guarantees of their own safety for other desiderata and vice versa.
Regulating externalities, on the other hand, is often OK. Vehicle safety requirements should be based ONLY on the damage caused in collisions to other road users (other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists) and their property. Heavier vehicles perform WORSE in such tests; we might consider having a weight-based Pigovian vehicle tax to offset the safety and pollution externalities for those heavier cars we're still willing to allow on the roads.
Providing consumers with more information is a good idea. I'm fine with performing tests and requiring companies to provide prospective buyers with that information. But requiring disclosure without regulating/prohibiting the sale of the product still allows for what I think most would call a "truly free market."
If using MS's software may brick your neighbor's PC, go ahead and hold MS to the fire. If using MS's software may brick your own computer, require testing and a warning label. But the kind of guarantees the OP seems to want to require would override consumer preferences in a way that would cripple the software industry.