2 ms·

Remote bricking of a device I own without my knowledge AND consent is legally actionable if I know where to send the certified letter from my lawyer. In this ca

Remote bricking of a device I own without my knowledge AND consent is legally actionable if I know where to send the certified letter from my lawyer. In this case, I do.

jjcon 6y ago
Literally everything CAN be legally actionable. Unless it was previously explicitly agreed upon, a company can turn off a costly service they are providing at their will. Did you have an explicit agreement arranged? Again though... this has nothing to do with first sale.
gamblor956 6y ago
You have no legal cause of action if the company is refunding your purchase of the device in full, or if you already sold the device to someone else. Moreover, there is a difference between disabling the functionality of the device and disabling the remote (i.e., cloud) software the device may depend on to function. The first might be legally actionable, but the second is not.
- gpm 6y ago
  > You have no legal cause of action if the company is refunding your purchase of the device in full [snip] You absolutely do. Companies who sold you something do not have the right to steal it back in exchange for a refund. Its your device, the transaction has been made, they are out of luck. They can offer you 10000x the price you originally bought it for and you are still free to decline. Of course, this (and basically all law surrounding ownership) applies to things and not services, and charitably I assume that these devices are stopping working because an online service is stopping working, and not because Google randomly decided to hack into your device and break it in plain violation of the law, but let's not pretend that "giving a refund" is a generally acceptable solution. And of course... if you have a contract with North (now Google) guaranteeing that they will provide the service indefinitely, and that contract doesn't include a term allowing Google to stop providing the service, you could still sue for injunctive relief requiring them to continue running the service. I assume you don't just because most companies aren't stupid enough to give out such contracts.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    You absolutely do. Companies who sold you something do not have the right to steal it back in exchange for a refund. Its your device, the transaction has been made, they are out of luck. They can offer you 10000x the price you originally bought it for and you are still free to decline. You absolutely do not. Legal damages are measured in monetary terms, and your putative damages are the amount you paid for the good. If the company refunds that in full, you have no legal cause of action; moreover, you are likely to end up owing the company for the legal fees they incur in defending themselves. They can offer you 10000x the price you originally bought it for and you are still free to decline. You can certainly do so. And the court will almost immediately toss out any case you may file against the company. And of course... if you have a contract with North (now Google) guaranteeing that they will provide the service indefinitely, and that contract doesn't include a term allowing Google to stop providing the service, you could still sue for injunctive relief requiring them to continue running the service. I don't know where you learned law, but this is absolutely false. The primary remedy provided by the court system is monetary not equitable. Courts will rarely if ever grant an injunction requiring a company to keep operating a service. They don't even do that in discrimination cases. Courts generally award monetary damages to users that suffered economic harm as a result of the service being discontinued. Moreover, under centuries of US and British law, any contract that has an "indefinite" length is merely deemed to have a "reasonable" length. Courts have invalidated contracts that attempted to bind one or both parties for infinite terms.
    - gpm 6y ago
      > You absolutely do not. Legal damages are measured in monetary terms, and your putative damages are the amount you paid for the good. If the company refunds that in full, you have no legal cause of action; moreover, you are likely to end up owing the company for the legal fees they incur in defending themselves. Monetary damages are not measured in purchase cost, but replacement cost. There are also punitive damages. There is also jail time (if/when a prosecutor decides to charge the individuals involved). > You can certainly do so. And the court will almost immediately toss out any case you may file against the company. I think you're missing the important part where you are still the legal owner of the property. The judge will order them to return the property and the local prosecutor will charge them with possession of stolen goods. > The primary remedy provided by the court system is monetary not equitable Specific performance is a common form of remedy when damages would be hard to calculate (such as in this situation). Moreover the monetary damages are not calculated based on the initial cost of the services (which may have been sold at a discount), but the damages at the current time (which may be substantially higher, or lower). > Moreover, under centuries of US and British law, any contract that has an "indefinite" length is merely deemed to have a "reasonable" length. Courts have invalidated contracts that attempted to bind one or both parties for infinite terms. You're not wrong, but "months or a few years" would not be past the "reasonable" limit in this case.

Remote bricking of a device I own without my knowledge AND consent is legally actionable if I know where to send the certified letter from my lawyer. In this case, I do.

jjcon 6y ago

Literally everything CAN be legally actionable. Unless it was previously explicitly agreed upon, a company can turn off a costly service they are providing at their will. Did you have an explicit agreement arranged? Again though... this has nothing to do with first sale.

gamblor956 6y ago

You have no legal cause of action if the company is refunding your purchase of the device in full, or if you already sold the device to someone else. Moreover, there is a difference between disabling the functionality of the device and disabling the remote (i.e., cloud) software the device may depend on to function. The first might be legally actionable, but the second is not.

gpm 6y ago
> You have no legal cause of action if the company is refunding your purchase of the device in full [snip] You absolutely do. Companies who sold you something do not have the right to steal it back in exchange for a refund. Its your device, the transaction has been made, they are out of luck. They can offer you 10000x the price you originally bought it for and you are still free to decline. Of course, this (and basically all law surrounding ownership) applies to things and not services, and charitably I assume that these devices are stopping working because an online service is stopping working, and not because Google randomly decided to hack into your device and break it in plain violation of the law, but let's not pretend that "giving a refund" is a generally acceptable solution. And of course... if you have a contract with North (now Google) guaranteeing that they will provide the service indefinitely, and that contract doesn't include a term allowing Google to stop providing the service, you could still sue for injunctive relief requiring them to continue running the service. I assume you don't just because most companies aren't stupid enough to give out such contracts.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  You absolutely do. Companies who sold you something do not have the right to steal it back in exchange for a refund. Its your device, the transaction has been made, they are out of luck. They can offer you 10000x the price you originally bought it for and you are still free to decline. You absolutely do not. Legal damages are measured in monetary terms, and your putative damages are the amount you paid for the good. If the company refunds that in full, you have no legal cause of action; moreover, you are likely to end up owing the company for the legal fees they incur in defending themselves. They can offer you 10000x the price you originally bought it for and you are still free to decline. You can certainly do so. And the court will almost immediately toss out any case you may file against the company. And of course... if you have a contract with North (now Google) guaranteeing that they will provide the service indefinitely, and that contract doesn't include a term allowing Google to stop providing the service, you could still sue for injunctive relief requiring them to continue running the service. I don't know where you learned law, but this is absolutely false. The primary remedy provided by the court system is monetary not equitable. Courts will rarely if ever grant an injunction requiring a company to keep operating a service. They don't even do that in discrimination cases. Courts generally award monetary damages to users that suffered economic harm as a result of the service being discontinued. Moreover, under centuries of US and British law, any contract that has an "indefinite" length is merely deemed to have a "reasonable" length. Courts have invalidated contracts that attempted to bind one or both parties for infinite terms.
  - gpm 6y ago
    > You absolutely do not. Legal damages are measured in monetary terms, and your putative damages are the amount you paid for the good. If the company refunds that in full, you have no legal cause of action; moreover, you are likely to end up owing the company for the legal fees they incur in defending themselves. Monetary damages are not measured in purchase cost, but replacement cost. There are also punitive damages. There is also jail time (if/when a prosecutor decides to charge the individuals involved). > You can certainly do so. And the court will almost immediately toss out any case you may file against the company. I think you're missing the important part where you are still the legal owner of the property. The judge will order them to return the property and the local prosecutor will charge them with possession of stolen goods. > The primary remedy provided by the court system is monetary not equitable Specific performance is a common form of remedy when damages would be hard to calculate (such as in this situation). Moreover the monetary damages are not calculated based on the initial cost of the services (which may have been sold at a discount), but the damages at the current time (which may be substantially higher, or lower). > Moreover, under centuries of US and British law, any contract that has an "indefinite" length is merely deemed to have a "reasonable" length. Courts have invalidated contracts that attempted to bind one or both parties for infinite terms. You're not wrong, but "months or a few years" would not be past the "reasonable" limit in this case.