Re: What is missing from this article is...
I've said it before so sorry if I'm boring people, and I haven't yet tested it myself, but I am pretty sure that, in the UK, SoGA (The Sale of Goods Act) should enable you to get your money back. It would be moderately easy to argue that a basic level of cybersecurity is a realistic expectation regarding being "fit for purpose" -- certainly the consumer would be entitled to compensation had they purchased a door lock with analogous defects.
Of course, the level of security one can reasonably expect depends on other factors ... nobody expects a cheap lock from a DIY store to be match expensive high security locks. But even very cheap items must be fit for purpose, and as many of these routers come with explicit claims about security or "firewall" functionality, I think they'd find it pretty hard to defend their case.
Who's going to try it?