• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I’m pretty sure this won’t fly in court because this is a significant change to a product long after the product was purchased, which could potentially fly in the face of false advertising laws, since this “feature” was not advertised, and they’re not being denied access to a product they purchased. It’s clearly coercive.

      However, this is the USA and stupider shit has happened. Judges here love to gargle corporate balls. See: Clearance Thomas.

    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Dude it’s a terms of service update, it’s not like watching ads on a subscription you already pay for.

      • TheWinged7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The terms of service update made you sign away your rights to sue the company if they refused to honour the warranty, that’s what people are upset about

        • nxdefiant@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I know, I read it, and those words mean absolutely nothing. You and I will never be affected by it. It’s like a random passerby waving sage at you and telling you they’ve disturbed your aura.

          I promise you practically every TOS you’ve ever blindly clicked through said something very similar.

          • Icalasari@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            You are downvoted, but you are right that at least some do this

            ToS are generally not binding as it’s not expected for the average person to actually read through the dense language. There is precedent for this

  • dakial@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    There should be a law that any change of T&C after the purchase of a product gives the customer the option to refuse the terms and get a full refund of that product, no matter how old it is.

    • Nommer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I have a smart light switch I can’t use anymore because they updated the app to force you to make an account to use it and I refused since it worked fine for the last 3 years without them needing to sell my data.

    • LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Europe is doing it. Look at Apple vs Spotify, as well as Apple forced to open their app stores to 3rd parties. Those are consumer oriented laws. In the USA, lobbying prevent those from happening.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      When we make lobbying illegal in this country the United States

  • dynamojoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    My kid consented. I think. Can she make binding contracts that she doesn’t tell me about because she’s looking for Blues Clues, or am I responsible for every OK she checks when I’m not present?

    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I let my cat step on the remote. Fucker doesn’t pull his weight, so if the lawyers come after him he’s on his own.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I have no idea how US contract law works. Even if you agree to something that says “we can alter the deal at any time”, when a change happens to the deal, don’t both sides have to benefit, rather than “agree to this change so that you can keep the same thing you had before”?

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      But don’t you see, the consumer surely benefits. After agreeing they get to continue using their tv under our new and wonderful terms of service. /s