4 ms·

The illegality lies on the fact that the product was advertised as having certain functionality on its own. > Typically most cloud products outline in their te

The illegality lies on the fact that the product was advertised as having certain functionality on its own. > Typically most cloud products outline in their terms that services and their features may change it at any point. The user bought the device before ever agreeing to any terms. At that point they're inherently entitled to the advertised functionality, merely by having their money change hands. Any post-sale agreement is separate from the purchase of the product that was informed by the advertisements.

kube-system 1y ago
Except there are two different companies here. The company that initially advertised and launched these products doesn't exist. The second company bought servers that are connected to devices where users have all clicked through a EULA which likely says that they can change it whenever the heck they want.
- EMIRELADERO 1y ago
  > The second company bought servers that are connected to devices where users have all clicked through a EULA which likely says that they can change it whenever the heck they want. And that EULA is potentially unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively, both due to the prior purchase that was concluded before any EULA came into the picture and the overall balance of power in the terms, the reason being that users have an inherent legal right to use software that comes with a device they purchased regardless of any later agreement.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    I do agree that the users have a good case for the right to run the version of the software that the device came with. I don't know if they have a good case to demand specific performance from a different company in order to do that for them. I also think that a EULA, whether enforceable or not in its terms, serves as pretty decent notice that continued software updates are a thing that it does, and those updates may change features, then that the current owners didn't violate anyone's rights by pushing out a software update. But if I were a user trying to revert my device back to the original software, I wouldn't be worried about any legal threats from the current owner.
    - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
      > I don't know if they have a good case to demand specific performance from a different company in order to do that for them. I mean, this new company pushed the lockout update and imposed the new terms. If we already assume that the users have the right to the advertised functionality, and that the new company has ties to the consumers by inheriting its contractual relationship with them through the previous company's EULA, it would make the most sense for a court to order them to right their wrong.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        Liability for false advertising generally does not transfer in an asset purchase. And the original company didn't really make any false statements. They were just unable to continue to uphold them because they cease to exist. But promises by some other company don't really transfer over unless you have a contract that specifically says that they do. If you're saying that the EULA is that contract, well, that same contract almost certainly gives the service provider the option to change it however they see fit. And I don't know the details here, but usually when something like this happens, any acquiring service provider will usually pop up a click through EULA that's updated for the new service provider, before they push out any further updates, to further strengthen any agreements that might be contained within it before they make any changes. But again, it looks like this company is not in the US so who knows how this may work in some other place.
        baq 1y ago
        Is false advertising a crime? If so, there are people who are liable no matter which legal entities they used to pull the scam off. Someone authorized it and someone implemented it. There should be fines and entries put in records.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        kube-system 1y ago

kube-system 1y ago

Except there are two different companies here. The company that initially advertised and launched these products doesn't exist. The second company bought servers that are connected to devices where users have all clicked through a EULA which likely says that they can change it whenever the heck they want.

EMIRELADERO 1y ago
> The second company bought servers that are connected to devices where users have all clicked through a EULA which likely says that they can change it whenever the heck they want. And that EULA is potentially unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively, both due to the prior purchase that was concluded before any EULA came into the picture and the overall balance of power in the terms, the reason being that users have an inherent legal right to use software that comes with a device they purchased regardless of any later agreement.
- kube-system 1y ago
  I do agree that the users have a good case for the right to run the version of the software that the device came with. I don't know if they have a good case to demand specific performance from a different company in order to do that for them. I also think that a EULA, whether enforceable or not in its terms, serves as pretty decent notice that continued software updates are a thing that it does, and those updates may change features, then that the current owners didn't violate anyone's rights by pushing out a software update. But if I were a user trying to revert my device back to the original software, I wouldn't be worried about any legal threats from the current owner.
  - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
    > I don't know if they have a good case to demand specific performance from a different company in order to do that for them. I mean, this new company pushed the lockout update and imposed the new terms. If we already assume that the users have the right to the advertised functionality, and that the new company has ties to the consumers by inheriting its contractual relationship with them through the previous company's EULA, it would make the most sense for a court to order them to right their wrong.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      Liability for false advertising generally does not transfer in an asset purchase. And the original company didn't really make any false statements. They were just unable to continue to uphold them because they cease to exist. But promises by some other company don't really transfer over unless you have a contract that specifically says that they do. If you're saying that the EULA is that contract, well, that same contract almost certainly gives the service provider the option to change it however they see fit. And I don't know the details here, but usually when something like this happens, any acquiring service provider will usually pop up a click through EULA that's updated for the new service provider, before they push out any further updates, to further strengthen any agreements that might be contained within it before they make any changes. But again, it looks like this company is not in the US so who knows how this may work in some other place.
      - baq 1y ago
        Is false advertising a crime? If so, there are people who are liable no matter which legal entities they used to pull the scam off. Someone authorized it and someone implemented it. There should be fines and entries put in records.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        kube-system 1y ago