I'm going to guess the problem isn't a "dual use" government export restriction. The VR AF-P 18-55 seems to be a plastic-mount kit lens for consumer DSLRs, though it does have some nice properties.
Could it be an anti gray market diversion effort gone a bit astray? There's a place for those efforts, but I'd think they'd be solving their business problem for new product, and tackling it at the points of their contractual partners. Not product end users.
Many photographers buy&sell used lenses, as they upgrade, experiment, change needs, etc. Photographers get married to proprietary lens systems, partly because they've bought into a particular system, but I've also seen a lot of brand goodwill. (I've had great experiences with Canon professional service, after buying into EF L glass, and also great experience with the Nikon parts service for some vintage strobe repairs I did on the side. I've often used the word "love" when talking about products from both brands.)
I don't understand how messing with the sale of a used entry-level DSLR lens is worth risking alienating photogs to your hard-earned brand and system.
I did not whatch the video, yet. But my experience so far with Nikon is, that it is no problem to get used gear from outside the EU. Emphasis on used and as a consumer. Also, Nikon's repair service is pretty good, also for basically obsolete stuff. As long as parts are available that it, and you are ready to pay the hourly rate (which is also fine, because they are not running a charity).
That being said, I prefer to buy within Europe, or even Germany, for simple reason of easier returns and no need for customs.
Edit: Asking who owns the camera because certain sources forbspare parts are blocked, while spares in general are available, or because certain sales channels are not available is a strong question to ask. Because you can sell and repair your gear. Cameras are air gaped, so you don't even havebto perform OTA updates. Nikom cannot block you from repairing your gear yourself, other then voiding the warranty, or using it which ever way you want. Quite different from, say, John Deere...
Edit 2: Just realized, every piece of used kit I bought, and had register for various reasons with Nikon ranging from repairs to servicing and cloud storage, was accepted by Nikon without problems. In one case I know the body was already sent in by someone else before, still no issue. I really have to watch the video, it seems.
Edit 3: Ok, just watched it long enough to understand the perceived problem. And it has nothing to do with Nikon per se. You can easily buy, every day all day long, used Nikon stuff from Japan and have it shipped to the EU for example. And it was not customs that blocked it, it was eBay. And even then only for international shipping through eBay international shipping. Which, apparently, is perfectly in line with existing legislation, but I am not a lawyer. So everything Nikok did, and yes this sucks, was blocking the resale of a used lense to customers abroad / outside the US, not the sale itself. That is different from what Apple does (as mentioned in the video).
To make it short: Yes, you own the kit and can sell it whenever you want. As every owner, you do not have the right to sell in whatever market on whatever plattform you want (commercial sellers are even more restricted). These restrictions have nothing to do with ownership rights. As I suspected, the video is based on so many misconceptions and misunderstandings, it is little more than a rant.
Try selling the Glock you bought in Texas in, say, London and you will find out. Or on Amazon, they have a strict no-guns policy.
Or me importing and selling the Fairbairn-Sykes dagger I made in the UK. Or the legal weed you bought in Amsterdam in Germany. Or the right hand drive car in one of those countries where those are illegal. I could go on...
Edit: Or importing Kinder Surprise eggs into the US, I just love that example.
It is legal to sell a Fairbairn-Sykes in the UK, you have to be a collector or merchant. You can sell a Glock in the UK, you have to be a liscensed merchant, same in any other European country I know. There are rules around those exports, imports and sales to follow. There are rules around the sale of branded parts, e.g. refurbished OEM parts, just follow them. And without details, we don't know why the one offer on eBay was flagged for export. Because domestic US sales are still fine, right?
Again, none of those points have anything to do with ownership of things.
Edit: Also, nobody said anything about the lense sale being illegal, for now we just have eBay blocking international shipping through eBays program, after Nikon US found something with the offervthey didn't like. Just what that was, we don't know.
Could it be an anti gray market diversion effort gone a bit astray? There's a place for those efforts, but I'd think they'd be solving their business problem for new product, and tackling it at the points of their contractual partners. Not product end users.
Many photographers buy&sell used lenses, as they upgrade, experiment, change needs, etc. Photographers get married to proprietary lens systems, partly because they've bought into a particular system, but I've also seen a lot of brand goodwill. (I've had great experiences with Canon professional service, after buying into EF L glass, and also great experience with the Nikon parts service for some vintage strobe repairs I did on the side. I've often used the word "love" when talking about products from both brands.)
I don't understand how messing with the sale of a used entry-level DSLR lens is worth risking alienating photogs to your hard-earned brand and system.