http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreement.jsp#ii http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreeme... Their service agreement r

http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreement.jsp#ii http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreeme... Their service agreement reads that they have the right to "change part of the Services provided under this Agreement at any time" in section 12. No doubt they're hoping that they'll be able to defend the charge based largely on this. But there's nothing to support the idea that the "Weblock Program" is a modification of the contracted services (domain registration) instead of a separate program. A couple glaringly obvious problems: First, the original email stated that the customer "will be protected via our WebLock Program," implying a distinction from the original services. Then there's the subject line, "Your domain is being enrolled in the WebLock Security Program," which is a fairly explicit assertion of the same. Second, you have the addition of Schedule II to the Service Agreement clearly stating that it's a separate service and not simply a change to the existing ones offered. In short, they don't really have any magical fine print to even point to (and that's before you start interpreting and responding to them) that can justify this new charge. But even if they somehow prevailed on the merits of any potential contractual claims, they're still going to get chewed up by their card processor as there isn't a merchant agreement in the world that can justify this behavior.