this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
942 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
7244 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Products that change the service they offer after you purchase it should also be eligible for a full refund (plus a % on top for the hassle). Such as offering a service through the product for free at the time of purchase but then moving it being a monthly subscription paywall later on, or just removing the feature completely.
So if you spent $130k on a Tesla that came with Disney+ and then the CEO has a completely irrelevant spat with Disney and removes it 5 years later, you should be able to return it for a full refund?
If your phone gets a software update and the WiFi and Mobile Data quick-toggle disappears and is replaced by an "internet" toggle 5 years later, does that entitle you to a full refund?
Just trying to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
For the first example, absolutely. If some execs have a meltdown, it could change future services but anyone who was promised Disney+ on their Tesla with no limit on it should get a fair refund. I understand that there's a slippery slope argument here, and no– the value of Disney+ in a car isn't 100% the value of it. But it's BS that a manchild having an Internet meltdown loses people a service they had and "paid for"
Just trying to figure out exactly what "changing the service" means.
I don't know that non-lawyers need to figure out exactly what it means, but in an ideal world: if you pay for something that includes a continuation of services and the services stop continuing, you should be compensated fairly. I am not smart enough to word that in a way that can't be worked around, "gotcha'd", etc. but I'm guessing the spirit of the rules is fairly common ground for anyone who isn't trying to rug-pull a service out from under those they sell it to.