Overall I think hardware wallet companies have less of a cushion to fumble with user trust than CEXes. Moving between exchanges is more of hassle due to various switching frictions like liquidity and trading pairs, so you may put up with shoddy service for longer.

Switching friction between hardware wallet companies is not very high, especially when it comes time to purchase the next shiny hardware wallet object. In Ledger case I am sure the CryptoBilis situation prompted lots of people to consider competitors as well as examine Ledger supply chain. It remains to be seen how much this will cost them in sales, if anything noticeable, but losing the trust factor is pretty bad when that is pretty much their main selling point.

Interesting indicator will be whether this causes them to tighten up their reseller screening and implement tamper evident packaging or whether they will just bank on newer users not knowing or caring about this stuff.

But, imo, a transparent case is a lesser cure than it seems. Seeing the circuit board through a clear shell only helps if you already know what the original looks like., and a swapped chip or tampered firmware can look completely normal to most of us. The worst one doesn't even require any physical transformation: a machine that comes with a preset seed will look just fine from the outside.

For the resellers, I don't think the manufacturers can wash their hands of it. They choose and list their resellers, so some of the responsibility for that distribution chain should remain with them. However, as regulators are not likely to do anything, I prefer to use user habits: purchase direct (if possible), always create my own seed, and use multisig for larger amounts.

I have thought about this too but I came to a self conclusion that if the government are involved in matters like this, for example, if the victims that lost their Bitcoin during the Coldcard vulnerability were to take any actions to report the company or take legal action against them, it will require the victims to expose their identity to the government and that's what some Bitcoin holders does not want to do because they also know that by doing so, they are attracting government attention to themselves. Imagine revealing to the government that you had 10 or more Bitcoin, they would guess that you still have more in other wallets. 

It is fully the responsibility of the company to handle issues like this by making sure that they only have one authorized retailer chain that sells to users from each country, so that if Mr. A from country B face this kind of issue, the company would know the retailer to hold responsible for tampering with the wallet.

There must be existing contracts between the manufacturer and resellers and there are different responsibilities for both sides. Challenge is how to identify where the tamper happened and caused incidents as well as fund losses on manufacturers' customers. Remember that from manufacturers to resellers to users who buy hardware wallets, there are many shipping steps which are all risky but have chances for tampering.

I don't know, if there is no standard guide on how to detect tampering, you can not be sure that what you buy even at an official store of a manufacturer, is an intact wallet, and you can create seeds, store your funds safely.

Okay, that's good. I didn't know such tutorials existed already.

But aside that one will have to look deeper if they do not know what they are looking for just to be sure.

I think with how complicated things are now with hardware wallet, people will have to be educated on how to keep them secured and purchased from the right sources.

It truly doesn't mean it would be risk free but at least, buying directly from the manufacturer would reduce the chances of getting a compromised product.

It's the manufacturers responsibility to check those products before it's distributed to the buyers.