In my view, the retailer isn't even legally at fault. Oculus is, for modifying the your device such that you can no longer use it. Imagine buying a chair. A ye

In my view, the retailer isn't even legally at fault. Oculus is, for modifying the your device such that you can no longer use it. Imagine buying a chair. A year later, the carpenter who made it lets themselves into your home and modifies it so it has three legs instead of four. They say it's an improvement because it's lighter now and easier to move around. But your elderly parent can't use the chair any more because it's less stable. Despite both arguments being valid, ultimately they had no right to modify your device. This is a Tort (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort). In the US, they'd probably be able to argue that there's some ToS that permitted this. In most of the rest of the world, I'd argue that there was no ToS at the time of the sale, and that therefore it cannot be valid (especially as there was no consideration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) associated with that modification).