Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

BMW API restrictions

2025-09-05T09:14:44Z

Gilolilo: changed "screwed" into "negatively affected", to keep a more neutral and journalistic tone.

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=BMW
|StartDate=2025-08-30
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=vehicles
|Product=vehicles, cars, automobiles
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=BMW destroys home assistant integration for customers of BMW's online services subscriptions
}}

==Background==
BMW ConnectedDrive is a subscription-based service that provides remote access to [[BMW]] vehicles through mobile applications & APIs, with tiers ranging from $50 to $150 per year after a free 3-year period.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-06-27 |title=What You're Really Paying For With BMW ConnectedDrive |url=https://www.bimmer-mag.com/bmw-connected-drive-price/ |access-date=2025-01-01 |website=Bimmer Mag}}</ref> The service enables features such as remote climate control, vehicle location tracking, & electric car charging management through BMW's official mobile applications.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-01-01 |title=BMW ConnectedDrive App Subscription Products, Store and Services |url=https://www.bmwusa.com/explore/connecteddrive.html |access-date=2025-01-01 |website=BMW USA}}</ref>

Home Assistant is an open-source home automation platform that allows users to integrate various smart home devices & services, including vehicle data through manufacturer APIs, with over 5000+ users of the BMW integration as of September 4th, 2025<ref>{{Cite web |title=Integrations {{!}} Home Assistant Analytics |url=https://analytics.home-assistant.io/integrations/}}</ref>. This number only counts users who did not turn off analytics.

According to discussions on the BMW i4 Forum, many BMW electric car users use this integration to optimize charging based on solar panel production, time-of-use electricity rates, & home energy management systems.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.i4talk.com/threads/smarter-charging-with-home-assistant.5441/ |title=Smarter Charging with Home Assistant |website=BMW i4 Forum |date=2024-05-20 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> The integration was highly valued by users who paid for BMW's ConnectedDrive subscriptions & expected to maintain API access for their automation needs.

==Incident==
According to user reports documented in GitHub issue #149750, BMW began notifying users through its Android application in July 2025 about upcoming changes to charge control APIs.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/149750 |title=Upcoming API changes notification from BMW · Issue #149750 |website=GitHub |date=2025-07-31 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> The notifications stated th''e'' following: <blockquote>''"to ensure the security of your personal data, and to better protect your vehicle, the option of allowing third-party providers to control your vehicle charging will be limited from September."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/149750 |title=Upcoming API changes notification from BMW · Issue #149750 |website=GitHub |date=2025-07-31 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref></blockquote>On August 30, 2025, BMW implemented strict API rate limiting that affected third-party applications. According to GitHub issue #151500, error logs showed HTTP 403 Forbidden responses with messages indicating '''"Out of call volume quota. Quota will be replenished in 00:49:03."'''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/151500 |title=BMW integration should handle call quota error · Issue #151500 |website=GitHub |date=2025-08-25 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> Users reported that the quota appeared to be limited to approximately 100 API calls per 24-hour period, far below the polling requirements of home automation systems.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/151502 |title=BMW Connected Drive Quota · Issue #151502 |website=GitHub |date=2025-08-25 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

Between September 1 and September 3, 2025, the Home Assistant community attempted various technical workarounds. According to discussions on the BMW i4 Forum, initial user-agent spoofing proved temporarily successful, with users reporting that mimicking official BMW app signatures allowed continued access.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.i4talk.com/threads/anyone-using-home-assistant-for-their-i4-with-bmw-connected-drive.9126/ |title=anyone using Home Assistant for their i4 with BMW connected drive? |website=BMW i4 Forum |date=2025-09-02 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> By September 3, 2025, these workarounds ceased functioning, with community members confirming that BMW had implemented additional detection methods.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/149750 |title=Upcoming API changes notification from BMW · Issue #149750 |website=GitHub |date=2025-09-03 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

According to industry analysis by Beebop AI, the restrictions affected over 1.5 million vehicles and disrupted utilities using reverse-engineered BMW APIs for demand response & grid stability programs.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.beebop.ai/blog/bmw-api-changes-could-disrupt-utilities-using-unapproved-ev-connections |title=BMW API Changes Could Disrupt Utilities Using Unapproved EV Connections |website=Beebop AI |date=2025-09-01 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> The timing occurred days before the EU Data Act's implementation on September 12, 2025, which requires manufacturers to provide users with access to their vehicle data.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2854/oj/eng |title=Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 |website=EUR-Lex |date=2023-12-13 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

===BMW's response===
According to the notifications sent through the BMW mobile application, the company cited ''"security"'' & ''"safety"'' as justifications for the API restrictions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/149750 |title=Upcoming API changes notification from BMW · Issue #149750 |website=GitHub |date=2025-07-31 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> The notifications directed users to a FAQ page listing approved electricity providers that would maintain access to vehicle charging control.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.i4talk.com/threads/bmw-to-disable-remote-charging-control-api.14532/ |title=BMW to disable remote charging control API |website=BMW i4 Forum |date=2025-08-01 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

BMW has not issued an official press release or public statement regarding the API restrictions beyond the in-app notifications. According to user reports on GitHub, attempts to contact BMW customer service resulted in '''''"boilerplate responses citing security as a reason for these very targeted actions."'''''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/149750 |title=Upcoming API changes notification from BMW · Issue #149750 |website=GitHub |date=2025-08-31 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> The company has maintained partnerships with approved charging networks including Electrify America, Shell Recharge, & EVgo.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bmwusa.com/charging.html |title=BMW Electric Vehicle Charging |website=BMW USA |date=2025-01-01 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
The Home Assistant community posted & documented many integration failures through multiple GitHub issues, with issue #149750 receiving over 250 comments from users getting negatively affected by this.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/149750 |title=Upcoming API changes notification from BMW · Issue #149750 |website=GitHub |date=2025-09-04 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> Users report complete loss of automated EV charging management & broken solar panel integration logic.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://community.home-assistant.io/t/bmw-integration-no-support-from-september-for-thirtparty-providers-like-ha/916187 |title=BMW integration: No support from September for thirtparty providers like HA |website=Home Assistant Community |date=2025-09-01 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

According to forum discussions, affected users attempted multiple technical solutions between August 30 and September 3, 2025, including polling rate reduction, QR code re-authentication, & regional API switching.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.i4talk.com/threads/anyone-using-home-assistant-for-their-i4-with-bmw-connected-drive.9126/ |title=anyone using Home Assistant for their i4 with BMW connected drive? |website=BMW i4 Forum |date=2025-09-02 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> Community members suggested some technical solutions like quota-aware polling with exponential backoff & improved error differentiation between quota & authentication failures.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://github.com/home-assistant/core/issues/151500 |title=BMW integration should handle call quota error · Issue #151500 |website=GitHub |date=2025-08-25 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

It has been reported that some users began exploring alternative platforms, with discussions on the openHAB community forums about migrating from Home Assistant due to the BMW restrictions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.openhab.org/addons/bindings/mybmw/ |title=MyBMW - Bindings |website=openHAB |date=2025-09-03 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> According to Beebop AI's analysis, utilities faced financial penalties for failing to meet flexibility commitments when losing EV load-shaping capabilities.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.beebop.ai/blog/bmw-api-changes-could-disrupt-utilities-using-unapproved-ev-connections |title=BMW API Changes Could Disrupt Utilities Using Unapproved EV Connections |website=Beebop AI |date=2025-09-01 |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

==HomeAssistant & security==

BMW has a long track record of security vulnerabilities, none of which have ever been linked to Home Assistant.

==Past data security incidents==
BMW's justification for API restrictions cited ''"security"'' concerns, yet BMW has a documented history of severe security failures that exposed millions of customers to risks far greater than any posed by home automation integrations.

===ConnectedDrive vulnerability (2015)===
In 2015, security researcher Dieter Spaar discovered critical flaws in BMW's ConnectedDrive system that left 2.2 million vehicles vulnerable to remote attacks. The vulnerabilities included using identical symmetric encryption keys across all vehicles, failing to encrypt communications between cars & BMW's backend servers, & relying on the obsolete DES encryption standard.<ref>{{cite web |title=How To Hack a BMW: Details On the Security Flaw That Affected 2.2 Million Cars |website=Slashdot |date=2015-02-07 |url=https://it.slashdot.org/story/15/02/07/0432254/how-to-hack-a-bmw-details-on-the-security-flaw-that-affected-22-million-cars |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> These basic security oversights allowed attackers to remotely unlock vehicles by standing within a few hundred feet with cellular network emulation equipment.

===Multiple vehicle vulnerabilities (2018)===
Keen Security Lab researchers identified 14 vulnerabilities affecting BMW i Series, X Series, 3 Series, 5 Series & 7 Series vehicles. The flaws enabled both local & remote attacks on infotainment systems, Telematics Control Units, & CAN bus controls.<ref>{{cite web |title=BMW Fixes Security Flaws in Several Well-Known Car Models |website=Bleeping Computer |date=2018-05-23 |url=https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/bmw-fixes-security-flaws-in-several-well-known-car-models/ |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> Six vulnerabilities could be exploited remotely via Bluetooth & cellular networks without authentication.

===APT infiltration (2019)===
The Vietnamese state-sponsored hacking group OceanLotus (APT32) breached BMW's corporate networks & remained undetected from March 2019 until December 2019. The attackers deployed Cobalt Strike malware for espionage & remote control.<ref>{{cite web |title=BMW Infiltrated by Hackers Hunting for Automotive Trade Secrets |website=Bleeping Computer |date=2019-12-06 |url=https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/bmw-infiltrated-by-hackers-hunting-for-automotive-trade-secrets/ |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> BMW's security team discovered the breach but monitored the hackers for months before finally removing them from the network.<ref>{{cite web |title=BMW Hacked - OceanLotus Hackers Group Penetrate the BMW Networks |website=GBHackers |date=2019-12-07 |url=https://gbhackers.com/bmw-hacked/ |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref>

===UK customer database breach (2020)===
The KelvinSecurity hacking group compromised personal information of 384,319 BMW customers in the UK & offered it for sale on darknet forums. The exposed data included names, email addresses, vehicle registration numbers, residential addresses, & dealership information from 2016-2018.<ref>{{cite web |title=Data Breach Affects 384,319 BMW Customers in the U.K. |website=CISO Magazine |date=2020-07-06 |url=https://cisomag.com/bmw-data-breach/ |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> The database was allegedly obtained through a call center handling customer information for multiple automotive brands.

===BMW France ransomware attack (2023)===
The Play ransomware group claimed to have breached BMW France's systems in March 2023.<ref>{{cite web |title=BMW Data Breach Puts Customers Information At Risk! |website=The Cyber Express |date=2023-03-29 |url=https://thecyberexpress.com/bmw-data-breach-customers-information-risk/ |access-date=2025-01-01}}</ref> In 2022, BMW France had previously suffered a cybersecurity incident when its Twitter & Instagram accounts were compromised.

===Azure misconfiguration (2024)===
In early 2024, researchers discovered a misconfigured Microsoft Azure storage bucket that exposed BMW's private keys, credentials & other sensitive internal data to the public internet.<ref>{{cite web |title=BMW Security Error Left Valuable Private Company Data Exposed Online |website=TechRadar |date=2024-03-14 |url=https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/bmw-security-error-left-valuable-private-company-data-exposed-online |access-date=2025-09-04}}</ref>

===Hong Kong dealer breach (2024)===
BMW Concessionaires in Hong Kong suffered a breach in July 2024 exposing personal data of approximately 14,000 customers, including names & mobile numbers.<ref>{{cite web |title=BMW Hong Kong Data Breach Exposes Customer Information |website=Daily Security Review |date=2024-07-05 |url=https://dailysecurityreview.com/security-spotlight/bmw-data-breach/ |access-date=2025-09-04}}</ref>

===BMW Financial Services breach (2025)===
In February 2025, BMW Financial Services North America reported a breach via its vendor AIS InfoSource LP affecting nearly 2,000 individuals, with exposed data including names, Social Security numbers, account numbers & more.<ref>{{cite web |title=BMW Financial Services Data Breach Affects Nearly 2,000 Customers |website=Claim Depot |date=2025-03-01 |url=https://www.claimdepot.com/investigations/bmw-financial-services-data-breach-2025 |access-date=2025-09-04}}</ref>

===Pattern of security failures===
These incidents demonstrate BMW's inability to implement basic security practices, including encryption, access controls, & breach detection. The company's claim that restricting legitimate customer access to their own vehicle data is necessary for ''"security"'' , which to users appears contradictory given their documented failures to secure data through proper technical measures rather than access restrictions.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:BMW]]
[[Category:Digital restrictions]]
[[Category:API restrictions]]
[[Category:Home automation]]
[[Category:2025 incidents]]

Google

2025-03-10T10:51:47Z

Gilolilo: Small edits, added 2 sources

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = Google
| Type = Subsidiary
| Founded = 1998
| Industry = Technology
| Official Website = https://google.com/
| Logo = Google.webp
}}
'''[[wikipedia:Google|Google LLC]]''', founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, is one of the most influential technology companies in the world.<ref>https://companiesmarketcap.com/tech/largest-tech-companies-by-market-cap/</ref> Originally developed as a search engine to organize and index the growing amount of information on the internet, Google has since expanded into a wide range of services and products, becoming a central player in digital advertising, software, hardware, and cloud computing.<ref>{{Cite web |date=access-date |title=Google Products |url=https://about.google/products/ |access-date=10 Mar 2025}}</ref>

Google's search engine remains its most well-known service, but the company has significantly diversified its offerings. Key products include the [[Android]] operating system, the [[Google Chrome]] web browser, [[Google Drive]] for cloud storage, [[Google Maps]], [[YouTube]], and [[Google Play]].<ref>https://about.google/intl/ALL_us/products/</ref>{{Citation needed}} Additionally, the company provides digital advertising services through Google Ads, generating the majority of its revenue.<ref>https://abc.xyz/assets/a3/91/6d1950c148fa84c7d699abe05284/2024q4-alphabet-earnings-release.pdf</ref> In recent years, Google has also developed hardware products such as the Pixel smartphone and Nest smart home devices.

Google has faced ongoing scrutiny related to data privacy, competition, and its dominant position in the market, such concerns have stretched as far back as 2012.<ref>https://ideas.time.com/2012/03/05/will-we-ever-get-strong-internet-privacy-rules/</ref><ref>https://techoversight.org/2023/09/06/google-at-25/</ref> The company has been the subject of various legal and regulatory challenges, particularly concerning antitrust issues, the use of personal data, and its impact on consumer choice.{{Citation needed}} The US government is currently engaged in an antitrust lawsuit against Google, with a decision expected early 2025.<ref>https://www.usvgoogleads.com/trial-updates/closing-arguments-november-25-once-twice-three-times-a-monopolist</ref>

In December 2024, "Google announced to organisations that use its advertising products, that from 16 February 2025, it will no longer prohibit them from employing [[wikipedia:Fingerprint_(computing)|fingerprinting]] techniques."<ref>https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2024/12/our-response-to-google-s-policy-change-on-fingerprinting/</ref>

==Anti-consumer incidents==

===Service shutdowns===

====Google Play Music shutdown====
[[wikipedia:Google_Play_Music|Google Play Music]] was a service that allowed users to purchase music, listen via streaming, and download to the local device; alternatively users could pay for a subscription to listen to all music available through streaming. It was publicly launched on the 16th November 2011 and later shutdown in December 2020.<ref>https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/thread/62843644/google-play-music-music-play-store-music-manager-are-going-away-%E2%80%93-everything-you-need-to-know?hl=en</ref><ref>https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/10/rip-google-play-music-2011-2020/</ref> Google Play Music further allowed users to upload their own songs to listen on all their devices, with a limit of up to 50,000 files.<ref>https://www.howtogeek.com/288231/how-to-upload-your-music-library-to-google-play-music/</ref> Users were able to purchase songs individually or buy whole albums that they could then download and listen to, or stream through the internet.<ref>https://www.technobezz.com/buy-music-google-play/</ref>

In October 2020, Google announced that they would be shutting down Google Play Music, with it being fully shut down by December.<ref>https://9to5google.com/2020/12/03/google-play-music-dead/</ref> This went ahead with a warning to their users to begin migrating to [[wikipedia:YouTube_Music|YouTube Music]], and that they would be losing access to their purchased songs. Google recommended users should download their purchased songs before the service would shut down.<ref>https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-will-replace-google-play-music-end-2020/</ref>

After the shut down, users lost access to the music they paid for, with no way to download them. Google justified this by transferring all playlists and purchase history to YouTube Music, and only refunding songs that were not directly available,<ref>https://darwinsdata.com/what-happened-to-my-songs-on-google-music/</ref><ref>https://www.makeuseof.com/what-happened-to-google-play-music/</ref> with no guarantee that the songs will remain available through the new service. Users found that their purchased songs were no longer able to stream at 320kbps on YouTube Music compared to Google Play Music unless they paid for the monthly subscription.<ref>https://www.techradar.com/news/software/google-music-uk-everything-you-need-to-know-1120176</ref><ref>https://www.noteburner.com/youtube-music-tips/youtube-music-audio-quality.html</ref> If a user failed to initiate the transfer of their music library or locally download their songs by 24th February 2021, then they lost all access and all data associated with Google Play Music.<ref>https://www.gadgets360.com/how-to/news/google-play-music-data-deleted-february-24-youtube-how-to-transfer-files-playlists-billing-information-2365609</ref> YouTube Music does not provide the option to download songs as MP3s, with local downloads requiring an internet connection every 30 days to stay up.<ref>https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/answer/6313535?hl=en-GB&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid</ref>

====Google Stadia shutdown====
In January 2023, Google announced the shutdown of its cloud gaming service, Stadia, which was launched in November 2019.<ref>https://www.theverge.com/23380140/google-stadia-ending-shutdown-latest-news-gaming-tech/archives/2</ref> Stadia required users to purchase games individually, unlike other gaming platforms that offer subscription-based access. Upon the service's closure, Google promised to refund consumers for their purchases, including both games and hardware. The refunds for games and software were issued automatically, and if the refund failed to transfer, then you would've needed to contact your bank.<ref>https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-get-your-google-stadia-refund/</ref>

Stadia users were effectively renting access to games, as the platform did not allow for traditional ownership or offline play. With the service discontinued, consumers were left without access to the content they had purchased. Stadia users who had bought controllers and other peripherals for the service were also impacted by the shutdown. While Google offered refunds to customers, many Stadia consumers were left with equipment that no longer performs the advertised functions and limited recourse for repurposing or reselling their devices.<ref>https://www.gamerevolution.com/guides/852697-stadia-shut-down-how-to-use-controller-chromecast-without-app</ref>

Google Stadia controllers were limited to Wi-Fi connectivity, however upon shut down they started offering an update to allow them to connect through Bluetooth, the update service website was scheduled to shut down on the 31st December 2023.<ref>https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/pc-gaming/bluetooth-support-for-google-stadia-controller-arrives-heres-how-to-enable-it-and-play-pc-games</ref>

==Anti-consumer legal cases==

===Rodriguez v. Google LLC (5/21/21 - Present)===
Google's Web & App Activity setting had the ability to be paused. Reportedly, despite this setting being paused by consumers, Google would continue to collect consumer data regardless of consent.<ref>https://www.googlewebappactivitylawsuit.com/Home/FAQ#faq1</ref> This case is currently ongoing and has yet to receive a judgment over this case.<ref>https://www.googlewebappactivitylawsuit.com/Home/Documents</ref>

==See also==

===Products===
*[[Android]]
*[[Chromium]]
*[[Google Chrome]]
*[[Google Drive]]
*[[Google Maps]]
*[[Google Pixel]]
*[[Google Play]]
*[[reCAPTCHA]]
*[[YouTube]]

===Controversies===

*[[Advertising overload]]
*[[Google follows Samsung, asserts the right to steal your phone during a repair]]
*[[Google Pixel Watches do not come with repair options]]
*[[HD Movie Purchases Google Movies/YouTube reduced to 480p on the web]]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Google]]

Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used

2025-02-20T11:55:36Z

Gilolilo: Title formatting

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if advertised "Power Your Site" feature is used}}

The [[Tesla]] cybertruck advertises a feature called "Power Your Site", which seems to fall outside of the warranty conditions for the car battery.<ref name=":0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzdIjCzKhfM, Louis Rossmann</ref><ref>https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck</ref> The feature matches a warranty void clause that is in the New Vehicle Limited Warranty conditions that took effect since November 11th 2023.<ref>https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty</ref><ref name=":1">https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/tesla-cybertruck-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf; [https://web.archive.org/web/20241224172501/https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/tesla-cybertruck-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf Archived link]</ref>

==Background==
The "Power Your Site" feature allows using the car battery to power other devices. It is advertised as a way to "operate your tools or charge any EV with integrated 120V and 240V bed and cabin outlets. During a grid outage, provide up to 11.5 kW of power directly to your home to help keep the lights on." These cybertruck models tend to have large battery capacities around 120kWh.<ref name=":2">https://www.evspecifications.com/en/model/800fef</ref> These vehicles consume much more power for their driving operation, like when they are accelerating 0-100km/h (60mph) under three seconds with their over 200kW motors<ref name=":2" />. It is a power requirement that the batteries should handle easily, so it is expected that if regular driving falls within battery warranty that this "Power Your Site" feature would also fall under warranty, especially if it is advertised without any disclaimers.<ref name=":0" />

==Updated warranty void conditions for the car battery==
The relevant New Vehicle Limited Warranty for the cybertruck battery are as follows:<ref name=":1" /><blockquote>Damage to the Battery resulting from the following activities is also not covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty:

*Damaging the Battery, or intentionally attempting, either by physical means, programming, or other methods, to extend (other than as specified in your Owner's Manual and any documentation provided by Tesla) or reduce the life of the Battery;
*Exposing the Battery to direct flame (excluding from Battery fires as specified previously);
*Using the vehicle as a permanent, stationary or long-term power source or backup; and
*Flooding the Battery or vehicle use outside the scope of the Owner's Manual.
</blockquote>The third clause, "Using the vehicle as a permanent, stationary or long-term power source or backup", does not further define what "long-term" means. On the same page, there is also another section that further reduces the scope of the provided warranty<ref name=":1" />:<blockquote>Your vehicle updates its software wirelessly, constantly providing new features and improvements for your vehicle, including updates to protect and improve Battery longevity. Any noticeable changes to the performance of the Battery due to these software updates are NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty.</blockquote>So that means that it is possible for Tesla to change the performance of the battery remotely, without the customer being able to use warranty if this update negatively affects them.

===Tesla's response===
No official response has been provided yet, although there was a significant backlash by customers.

==Consumer response==
Customers mainly reacted on the other conditions that fall outside of the warranty, like driving off-road, the environment, or "an act of God", which includes "exposure to sunlight".<ref name=":1" /><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/1d0ld6y/tesla_cybertruck_warranty_doesnt_include</ref>

==See also==

*[[Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act]]<br />

==References==
{{reflist}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if advertised "Power Your Site" feature is used}}
[[Category:Tesla]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used

2025-02-20T11:54:31Z

Gilolilo: Title formatting

The [[Tesla]] cybertruck advertises a feature called "Power Your Site", which seems to fall outside of the warranty conditions for the car battery.<ref name=":0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzdIjCzKhfM, Louis Rossmann</ref><ref>https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck</ref> The feature matches a warranty void clause that is in the New Vehicle Limited Warranty conditions that took effect since November 11th 2023.<ref>https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty</ref><ref name=":1">https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/tesla-cybertruck-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf; [https://web.archive.org/web/20241224172501/https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/tesla-cybertruck-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf Archived link]</ref>

==Background==
The "Power Your Site" feature allows using the car battery to power other devices. It is advertised as a way to "operate your tools or charge any EV with integrated 120V and 240V bed and cabin outlets. During a grid outage, provide up to 11.5 kW of power directly to your home to help keep the lights on." These cybertruck models tend to have large battery capacities around 120kWh.<ref name=":2">https://www.evspecifications.com/en/model/800fef</ref> These vehicles consume much more power for their driving operation, like when they are accelerating 0-100km/h (60mph) under three seconds with their over 200kW motors<ref name=":2" />. It is a power requirement that the batteries should handle easily, so it is expected that if regular driving falls within battery warranty that this "Power Your Site" feature would also fall under warranty, especially if it is advertised without any disclaimers.<ref name=":0" />

==Updated warranty void conditions for the car battery==
The relevant New Vehicle Limited Warranty for the cybertruck battery are as follows:<ref name=":1" /><blockquote>Damage to the Battery resulting from the following activities is also not covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty:

*Damaging the Battery, or intentionally attempting, either by physical means, programming, or other methods, to extend (other than as specified in your Owner's Manual and any documentation provided by Tesla) or reduce the life of the Battery;
*Exposing the Battery to direct flame (excluding from Battery fires as specified previously);
*Using the vehicle as a permanent, stationary or long-term power source or backup; and
*Flooding the Battery or vehicle use outside the scope of the Owner's Manual.
</blockquote>The third clause, "Using the vehicle as a permanent, stationary or long-term power source or backup", does not further define what "long-term" means. On the same page, there is also another section that further reduces the scope of the provided warranty<ref name=":1" />:<blockquote>Your vehicle updates its software wirelessly, constantly providing new features and improvements for your vehicle, including updates to protect and improve Battery longevity. Any noticeable changes to the performance of the Battery due to these software updates are NOT covered under this Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty.</blockquote>So that means that it is possible for Tesla to change the performance of the battery remotely, without the customer being able to use warranty if this update negatively affects them.

===Tesla's response===
No official response has been provided yet, although there was a significant backlash by customers.

==Consumer response==
Customers mainly reacted on the other conditions that fall outside of the warranty, like driving off-road, the environment, or "an act of God", which includes "exposure to sunlight".<ref name=":1" /><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/1d0ld6y/tesla_cybertruck_warranty_doesnt_include</ref>

==See also==

*[[Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act]]<br />

==References==
{{reflist}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Tesla cybertruck voids warranty if advertised "Power Your Site" feature is used}}
[[Category:Tesla]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

Amazon Kindle removes download feature of purchased books

2025-02-18T12:41:29Z

Gilolilo: added WinterBreak and KOReader as part of Consumer response

In February 2025, the Amazon website website says that, starting February 26th, [[Amazon Kindle]] users can no longer download their purchased e-books from Amazon's website to their computers using the "download and transfer via USB" feature. A message describing this change appears on the page for the download feature.<ref name="theverge">https://www.theverge.com/news/612898/amazon-removing-kindle-book-download-transfer-usb</ref>

==Background==
Amazon allows purchasing e-books on their platform. These e-books are designed to be used with Amazon Kindle devices and the Kindle app. The "download and transfer via USB" feature allows users to download purchased e-books on your computer. The intended use for this is to allow people to transfer e-books from their computer to their Kindle, without requiring the Kindle to have an internet connection.

As well as the intended usage, customers use this feature to create backups of their Kindle libraries and to convert the e-books to other formats to use with non-Kindle devices. Amazon Kindle e-readers use a proprietary format to store e-books, and a lot of the e-books contain [[Digital rights management|DRM]], which needs to be removed to use the e-books with non-Kindle devices. Newer Kindle devices use the KFX format, which makes it almost impossible to remove DRM. Since the download and transfer feature uses the older AZW3 format, people with newer Kindles can use this feature to download their e-books in a format where the DRM can be removed.<ref name="theverge" />

==Removal of download and transfer via USB==
In February 2025, Amazon added a notice next to the download button whenever you access the "download and transfer via USB" feature. This notice says that the feature will be removed on February 26th. This means that after that day, customers won't be able to download their purchased e-books from the Amazon website.

Customers will still be able to download e-books to their Kindles, but will have to either use the Kindle store on the device or use the "Deliver or Remove from Device" option on the Amazon website.<ref name="theverge" /> Both of these options require the e-reader to have an internet connection.

This isn't the first time Amazon has made changes affecting customers' access to their purchased e-books. For instance, Amazon previously removed books customers had purchased since the company that uploaded them didn't have the rights to the content.<ref>https://goodereader.com/blog/kindle/amazon-is-not-to-be-trusted-anymore-with-their-kindle-e-reader</ref>

==Customer response==

This change has caused significant backlash from customers.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/kindle/comments/1inr9uy/fyi_amazon_is_removing_download_transfer_option</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMoCzeGnIss</ref> This is due to the following reasons:

*The change makes it much harder for customers to read e-books they have purchased on non-Kindle devices
*Customers are now required to connect their Kindle e-readers to the internet if they want to download books purchased on Amazon
*The change makes it harder for customers to move away from Amazon to another e-book platform, since customers wouldn't be able to keep the e-books they purchased through Amazon

After the announcement, many consumers have downloaded their purchased e-books with the download and transfer feature while the feature is still available. Many people are also moving to other providers to buy e-books going forward.

Other users have resorted to jailbreaking their devices to ensure continued access to previous features. This can be done using tools such as [https://kindlemodding.org/jailbreaking/WinterBreak/ WinterBreak], which allow users to run custom applications like [https://github.com/koreader/koreader/wiki/Installation-on-Kindle-devices KOReader], a unified eBook reader that supports PDF, DjVu, EPUB, FB2, and many other formats—on Cervantes, Kindle, Kobo, PocketBook, and Android devices.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Amazon]]
[[Category:Digital rights management]]
[[Category:Retroactively amended purchase]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

Self-destructive design

2025-02-13T13:37:19Z

Gilolilo: /* Planned obsolescence */ Removed the sentence: These definitely exist someone has to write an article.

{{StubNotice}}

'''Self-destructive design''' is a generic form of product design whereby it is possible that some if not all functions of the device will cease functioning. Self-destructive design can occur unintentionally due to oversights but it can be implemented intentionally. Self-destructive design is split into numerous types: '''discontinuation bricking, digital discontinuation bricking, end-of-life product discontinuation,''' and '''planned obsolescence'''. All forms of self-destructive design harm consumers in that it reduces product lifetime and increases waste production.

*'''Planned obsolescence''' is a business strategy where a product is designed in such a way that it will inevitably fail or become obsolete and require replacement with a non-obsolete product.
*'''End-of-life product discontinuation (EOL)''' is a generic term describing the discontinuation of production of a product and its parts.
**'''Discontinuation bricking,''' also known as '''Physical discontinuation bricking''' is a symptom of EOL where a product completely ceases functioning, likely because it is no longer reparable.
**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is a symptom of EOL where a product that depends on a network connection ceases functioning either because the company remotely shut down the product or shut down services the product depends upon.

==Overall impacts==
All types of self-destructive design share common negative impacts on consumer rights.

===Actively malicious behavior===
All types of self-destructive design can occur out of malicious intent to ruin a consumer's product.

*'''Planned obsolescence''' is the only type of self-destructive design that can be attributed as totally malicious; companies that institute planned obsolescence in their designs do so to ensure their customers buy more products. In addition invisible planned obsolescence can make consumers buy products they otherwise would not have bought with the knowledge of the dark practice.
*'''EOL''' is less likely to be malicious as it actually does provide real benefits for companies; no one expects early 20th century cars to remain supported or in production in the 21st century. There is room for malicious EOL decisions with the intent to make consumers buy more products.
**'''Discontinuation bricking''' is also less likely to be malicious as it can occur when a company goes out of business, but for when companies just decide to take the product offline entirely it is more questionable. There is definitely room for malicious bricking incidents to occur.

It should also be noted that EOL products can fall into the category of planned obsolescence <u>if there is evidence to support the producer designed the product such that it would become obsolete</u>.

==='''Environmental harm'''===
Excessive waste of all forms are inevitable in all types of self-destructive design. The loss of product or component functionality will create justification for consumers to discard their product and replace it with a functioning one.

*'''Planned obsolescence''' is special in this case because its sole intent is to make products become waste so that consumers buy more products.
*'''EOL''' will generate waste due to the decrease in reparability. If it becomes to expensive to repair an EOL product it becomes waste.
**'''Physical Discontinuation bricking''' usual makes repair of the the device usually makes the device harder to repair.
**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is even more severe in this regard due to dependence on remote servers, most consumers will not build their own server architecture for the sake of running a digital app or device.

The result of self-destructive design is an inevitable harm to the environment even though many companies claim to be "sustainable" while engaging in the practice.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250128190650/https://www.apple.com/environment/ Environment - Apple] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref>

===Hard vs soft bricking===
The term '''"bricking"''' refers to the process of a product losing functionality to the point that it becomes "brick-like" -- just a useless object. A product becomes '''hard-bricked''' if <u>all</u> its functionality is lost, usually in a very sudden manner -- in the flick of a switch. Hard-bricked devices are often difficult to de-brick. A product becomes '''soft-bricked''' when <u>some</u> of its functionality is lost. Soft-bricking can occur quickly but it can also slowly progress into hard-bricking; I.E: [[Intel CPUs stability issue|oxidation of a processor slowly killing it]].

*'''Planned obsolescence''' usually has a soft-bricking effect because designers tend to use a "slow-burn" effect which slowly harms the functioning of the device. The practice is unlikely to immediately destroy all functionality and is very difficult to detect as it might take several years to have a major impact.
*'''EOL''' is unpredictable in the bricking severity. Some EOL products may survive several years without requiring any repairs at all -- this is evidence of good design -- others may fail very quickly.
**'''Physical Discontinuation bricking''' occurs when it is impossible to continue maintaining an EOL resulting in a total failure.
**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is unique in that the product's functionality is almost always kept intact, just some digital system blocks using any of the features; it is hard to determine if this is "soft" or "hard" bricking because while all functionality is lost, its lost because the device blocking the function.

===Dependence on third-parties for repairs and bypasses===
Some consumers will wish to repair their products after it has been damaged which results in them contacting third-parties. Some third-party services may be untrustworthy and could open the user to [[security]] and [[safety]] risks

*'''Planned obsolescence''' is often the least harmful in terms of reparability as a side effect of its invisible nature. Often times it is possible to simply replace obsolete components with working ones. Companies attempt to prevent third party repair of obsolete components by using other dark practices such as [[Component pairing|anti-repair component pairing]].
*'''EOL''' is more significant due to the disappearance of repair components over time and anti-repair practices that prevent consumers from repairing their products with custom components.
**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is perhaps the most difficult to deal with due to the complexity of bypasses. A product that has ceased functioning because an authorization server has gone offline will require the user to either setup their own servers or bypass the remote authorization, malicious third-parties can take advantage of desperate consumers whose digital products have been disabled. In addition the more digital products depend on remote servers, the more difficult it will be to replace the hardware.

===Third-party sale falsification===
Products are often resold on the internet, and may be put on sale before self-destructive design defects appear. These sales will include valid information but become invalidated afterwards causing [[false advertising]]. This has many implications:

#Sellers may be completely unaware of the defect and will continue selling their product, hurting seller reputation once the buyer discovers the defect.
#Buyers may be completely unaware of the defect and will buy the product, only to discover the defect and harm the buyer.
#Customers may learn about the defect and decide to sell the product without providing adequate details, even without any malicious intent, solely to recoup loss.

*'''Planned obsolescence''' is unlikely to cause sale falsification due to its invisible and constant nature which usually makes it undetected but sellers who are aware of this dark pattern should inform buyers.
*'''EOL''' announcements can cause sale falsification if the product is declared EOL after the product is put up for sale -- which invalidates the seller's information.
**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is highly likely to cause sale falsification due to its sudden and often unannounced nature, sudden bricking also contributes the highest amount of misinformation around a products functioning state.

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="margin: auto;"
|+Types of self-destructive design and their impacts
!<nowiki>Type | Impact</nowiki>
!Actively malicious behavior
!Environmental harm
!Soft-brick
!Hard-brick
!Required repairs
!Sale Falsification
|-
|Planned Obsolescence
|Always
|Guaranteed
|Likely
|Possible but unlikely as of now
|Usually minimal
|Unlikely
|-
|Discontinuation Bricking
|Sometimes
|Guaranteed
|Unlikely
|Often
|Minimal to extreme
|Very Likely
|-
|EOL Irreparability
|Sometimes
|Guaranteed
|Likely
|Likely
|Significant
|Likely
|}

==Examples==

===Planned obsolescence===

*[[IPhone planned obsolescence incidencies|IPhone planned obsolescence incidences]]

===EOL repair blocking actions===

===Digital discontinuation bricking===

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Articles in need of additional work]]
[[Category:Articles under development]]

Apple's planned obsolescence incidents

2025-02-13T10:38:23Z

Gilolilo: Expanded the sources

Apple's implementation of planned obsolescence is primarily driven by technological obsolescence, encompassing hardware, firmware, and software limitations. The company's hardware design choices, such as proprietary screws, glued components, and complex internal layouts, make repairs difficult for consumers and third-party repair shops.<ref>Barros, Mário & Dimla, Eric. (2021). [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353685307_From_Planned_Obsolescence_to_the_Circular_Economy_in_the_Smartphone_Industry_an_evolution_of_strategies_embodied_in_product_features/link/63204c6670cc936cd305ef57/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoicHVibGljYXRpb24iLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJfZGlyZWN0In19 From Planned Obsolescence to the Circular Economy in the Smartphone Industry: an evolution of strategies embodied in product features. Proceedings of the Design Society. 1.] 1607-1616. 10.1017/pds.2021.422. </ref> Firmware restrictions further limit repairability by disabling key functionalities when non-Apple components are used, as seen in battery and camera replacements, where users receive error messages and lose features like battery health monitoring and Face ID.

Software updates also contribute to planned obsolescence by leading to performance degradation. Research has confirmed that Apple's software updates negatively impact battery performance, often slowing down older devices and making them less functional over time. Apple has been criticized for discontinuing software support for older iPhone models, which forces consumers to upgrade to newer devices to maintain essential functions such as web browsing and email. Furthermore, Apple’s decision to change charging cable types, such as the shift from the Lightning port to USB-C, has rendered older accessories obsolete, adding another layer of forced obsolescence.

Despite growing regulatory pressure, Apple continues to control its repair ecosystem by restricting access to spare parts and discouraging third-party repairs. On the French Repairability Index (''[https://www.indicereparabilite.fr Indice de réparabilité]''), the majority of iPhone models obtain a score lower than five out of ten.<ref>[https://www.indicereparabilite.fr/appareils/multimedia/smartphone/page/3/?orderby=price iPhone repairability scores on the French Repairability Index]</ref>

In December 2022, French prosecutors opened an investigation into Apple over its part-pairing practice, which restricts third-party repairs. HOP, part of the Right to Repair Campaign, had previously filed a complaint, leading to Apple paying €25 million to the French treasury in 2020. HOP argues that this practice fosters planned obsolescence and harms sustainability efforts, advocating for a European ban on part-pairing. The investigation continues as part of broader efforts to protect consumer rights and encourage repairability.<ref>[https://www.halteobsolescence.org/plainte-contre-apple-le-procureur-de-la-republique-ouvre-lenquete/ Plainte contre Apple : le Procureur de la République ouvre l’enquête - 15 May 2023]</ref>

Legal actions against independent repair shops further solidify its control, making it difficult for users to extend the lifespan of their devices without relying on Apple’s costly repair services.
<references />

Spotify Car Thing

2025-02-12T12:33:47Z

Gilolilo: I've added a Title called Community Solutions, that describes what independent developers have come up with to keep the device functional, and prevent it from being e-waste

{{StubNotice}}

{{SecondProductPage
|infobox_logo=spotify_car_thing.png
|infobox_release_year=2022
|infobox_product_type=Physical application extension
|infobox_in_production=No
|infobox_website=[https://web.archive.org/web/20250127021601/https://carthing.spotify.com/|archive.org archive.org]
|description=The Spotify Car Thing was a physical device that allowed extended control of the Spotify app. When connected to a device running the Spotify app the Car Thing accesses an API for communication with the app, interacting with the Car Thing attempts to make API calls for interaction. Production of the Car Thing stopped July of 2022. The product ceased functioning on December 9th 2024 when the Car Thing API was shutdown, preventing the device from interacting with the Spotify app.
|summary_1_1=
'''Revocation of control''' - the [[Self-destructive design|discontinuation bricking]] of the device ultimately took away user control for thousands of people. Control was only regained after [[Security|security vulnerabilities]] in the device were exploited.
* '''Dependence on a phone app for basic functions''' - the Car Thing dependence on the Spotify app required that a phone authorized with the Spotify app always be present and connected to the Car Thing. The car thing's lack of offline support [[Forced app download|forced]] the user to use an app possibly unnecessarily.
* '''Retroactive resale falsification''' - the discontinuation bricking incident has created some potential risk for reseller false advertising which has been documented [[False advertising|here]].
|summary_2_1=
'''Data collection''' - Spotify openly admitted that the Car Thing had been developed to collect data on "how people listen to music and podcasts".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250129004743/https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-05-17/5-things-to-know-about-spotifys-latest-test/ "5 Things to Know about Spotify’s Latest Test"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref> How the data collected through the SCT is useful for this purpose is unclear, in addition it is also unclear what the data is.
* '''Security Concerns''' - The root access exploit<ref name=":1" /> while beneficial to user freedom, allowing them to [[jailbreak]] their device also raises some concerns for future buyers of jailbroken Car Things -- a malicious seller could upload malware onto the device -- resold SCTs may be a potential security risk.

|incidents_1_title=Production discontinued<ref name=":0">[https://archive.is/9F9Jk "Spotify’s Sordid Car Thing History—Here’s a Timeline of the Disastrous Hardware Release"] - archive.is - archived 2025-01-28</ref>
|incidents_1_date=July 27, 2022
|incidents_1_text=Production of the Car Thing is quietly halted due to poor sales.<ref>[https://archive.is/Lodo1 "What Happened to Spotify’s Car Thing? Spotify Exits Hardware"] - archive.is - archived 2025-01-28</ref>
|incidents_2_title=Price reduced from $89.99 to $29.99<ref name=":0" />
|incidents_2_date=August 20, 2022
|incidents_2_text=Spotify reduced the price by $60 in order to clear out their stock. The SCT would eventually sold out exposing more consumers to its discontinuation.
|incidents_3_title=Root access in the SCT is cracked by Security researchers<ref name=":0" />
|incidents_3_date=October 20, 2022
|incidents_3_text=Root access was gained on the SCT through local means.<ref name=":1">[https://archive.is/WFjUd "Spotify Car Thing - Root and Custom OS toolkit"] - archive.is - accessed 2025-01-28</ref> While this is damning for the SCT's security it was not significant to consumer security, it merely gave consumers the ability to repurpose the device by uploading their own software. There is a risk that resold jailbroken SCTs could contain malware but this is an unlikely target. Spotify's response to the exploit was "that the product is unsupported, and end-of-life, and therefore no bugs would be accepted pertaining to the product" <ref name=":1" /> which is actually the first time Spotify officially announced the discontinuation. The bypass guide is available [https://github.com/oddsolutions/superbird-bulkcmd here]
|incidents_4_title=Total discontinuation announced<ref name=":2" />
|incidents_4_date=May 23, 2024
|incidents_4_text=Spotify official announces the Car Thing's discontinuation on their website warning users that it will cease functioning entirely after December 9th, effectively discontinuation bricking] the device. <ref name=":2">[https://web.archive.org/web/20250128235625/https://support.spotify.com/us/article/car-thing-discontinued/ | "Car Thing discontinued"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref> The announcement created a large scale panic with Car Thing owners who had actually enjoyed their product and were disappointed in the future bricking incident.<ref name=":3" />
|incidents_5_title=A now dismissed class action lawsuit is filed against Spotify<ref name=":3">[https://web.archive.org/web/20250129011219/https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/30/spotify-begins-offering-car-thing-refunds-as-it-faces-lawsuit-over-bricking-the-streaming-device/ "Spotify Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over ‘Car Thing’ Deactivation: ‘A Useless Product’"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref>
|incidents_5_date=May 28, 2024
|incidents_5_text=Spotify was served a [[Class-action lawsuit|class-action lawsuit]] in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit claimed "Spotify misled consumers by selling them a soon-to-be obsolete product and then not offering refunds, reports Billboard".<ref name=":3" /> Prior to the lawsuit's filing Spotify had setup a refund page for buyers through email which directs customers to [https://support.spotify.com/us/contact-spotify-support/ this link], customers can receive refund with proof of purchase.<ref name=":3" /> The lawsuit was dismissed by the plaintiffs after Spotify began issuing refunds<ref>[https://archive.is/pwsVe "‘Car Thing’ Class Action Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed After Spotify Begins Issuing Refunds"] - archive.is - archived 2025-01-28</ref>.
|incidents_6_title=SCT API is shut down and removed from the Spotify App<ref name=":0" />
|incidents_6_date=December 9, 2024
|incidents_6_text=The removal of the Spotify Car Thing API completely bricked all Car Things in distribution.
}}
==Consumer Impact Summary==
<span></span>
====User Freedom====
<span></span>
*'''Revocation of control''' - the [[Self-destructive design|discontinuation bricking]] of the device ultimately took away user control for thousands of people. Control was only regained after [[Security|security vulnerabilities]] in the device were exploited.
*'''Dependence on a phone app for basic functions''' - the Car Thing dependence on the Spotify app required that a phone authorized with the Spotify app always be present and connected to the Car Thing. The car thing's lack of offline support [[Forced app download|forced]] the user to use an app possibly unnecessarily.
*'''Retroactive resale falsification''' - the discontinuation bricking incident has created some potential risk for reseller false advertising which has been documented [[False advertising|here]].<br />
<span></span>
====User Privacy====
<span></span>
*'''Data collection''' - Spotify openly admitted that the Car Thing had been developed to collect data on "how people listen to music and podcasts".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250129004743/https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-05-17/5-things-to-know-about-spotifys-latest-test/ "5 Things to Know about Spotify’s Latest Test"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref> How the data collected through the SCT is useful for this purpose is unclear, in addition it is also unclear what the data is.
*'''Security Concerns''' - The root access exploit<ref name=":1" /> while beneficial to user freedom, allowing them to [[jailbreak]] their device also raises some concerns for future buyers of jailbroken Car Things -- a malicious seller could upload malware onto the device -- resold SCTs may be a potential security risk.<br />
<span></span>
==Consumer Protection Incidents==
<span></span><h4>Production discontinued<ref name=":0">[https://archive.is/9F9Jk "Spotify’s Sordid Car Thing History—Here’s a Timeline of the Disastrous Hardware Release"] - archive.is - archived 2025-01-28</ref> (July 27, 2022)</h4>Production of the Car Thing is quietly halted due to poor sales.<ref>[https://archive.is/Lodo1 "What Happened to Spotify’s Car Thing? Spotify Exits Hardware"] - archive.is - archived 2025-01-28</ref><h4>Price reduced from $89.99 to $29.99<ref name=":0" /> (August 20, 2022)</h4>Spotify reduced the price by $60 in order to clear out their stock. The SCT would eventually sold out exposing more consumers to its discontinuation.<h4>Root access in the SCT is cracked by Security researchers<ref name=":0" /> (October 20, 2022)</h4>Root access was gained on the SCT through local means.<ref name=":1">[https://archive.is/WFjUd "Spotify Car Thing - Root and Custom OS toolkit"] - archive.is - accessed 2025-01-28</ref> While this is damning for the SCT's security it was not significant to consumer security, it merely gave consumers the ability to repurpose the device by uploading their own software. There is a risk that resold jailbroken SCTs could contain malware but this is an unlikely target. Spotify's response to the exploit was "that the product is unsupported, and end-of-life, and therefore no bugs would be accepted pertaining to the product" <ref name=":1" /> which is actually the first time Spotify officially announced the discontinuation. The bypass guide is available [https://github.com/oddsolutions/superbird-bulkcmd here]<h4>Total discontinuation announced<ref name=":2" /> (May 23, 2024)</h4>Spotify official announces the Car Thing's discontinuation on their website warning users that it will cease functioning entirely after December 9th, effectively discontinuation bricking] the device. <ref name=":2">[https://web.archive.org/web/20250128235625/https://support.spotify.com/us/article/car-thing-discontinued/ | "Car Thing discontinued"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref> The announcement created a large scale panic with Car Thing owners who had actually enjoyed their product and were disappointed in the future bricking incident.<ref name=":3" /><h4>A now dismissed class action lawsuit is filed against Spotify<ref name=":3">[https://web.archive.org/web/20250129011219/https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/30/spotify-begins-offering-car-thing-refunds-as-it-faces-lawsuit-over-bricking-the-streaming-device/ "Spotify Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over ‘Car Thing’ Deactivation: ‘A Useless Product’"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref> (May 28, 2024)</h4>Spotify was served a [[Class-action lawsuit|class-action lawsuit]] in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit claimed "Spotify misled consumers by selling them a soon-to-be obsolete product and then not offering refunds, reports Billboard".<ref name=":3" /> Prior to the lawsuit's filing Spotify had setup a refund page for buyers through email which directs customers to [https://support.spotify.com/us/contact-spotify-support/ this link], customers can receive refund with proof of purchase.<ref name=":3" /> The lawsuit was dismissed by the plaintiffs after Spotify began issuing refunds<ref>[https://archive.is/pwsVe "‘Car Thing’ Class Action Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed After Spotify Begins Issuing Refunds"] - archive.is - archived 2025-01-28</ref>.<h4>SCT API is shut down and removed from the Spotify App<ref name=":0" /> (December 9, 2024)</h4>The removal of the Spotify Car Thing API completely bricked all Car Things in distribution.

== Community Solutions ==
<span></span>Spotify had previously posted the code for its uboot and kernel to GitHub, under the very unassuming name "spsgsb" and with no announcement (as discovered by Josh Hendrickson).<ref>https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/11/firmware-hacks-are-rejuvenating-spotifys-car-thing-before-the-company-bricks-it/</ref>

There are currently a few solutions on the market to prevent the device from becoming e-waste. This includes software such as [https://deskthing.app/ deskthing], a versatile desktop assistant, [https://github.com/BluDood/GlanceThing GlanceThing], a glanceable action pad, or [https://github.com/usenocturne/nocturne-image Nocturne], a pre-built Debian 12 image for the Spotify Car Thing, that aims to replicate the original function of the Car Thing, still in active development.

==References==
<span></span><references />
[[Category:Products]]

ASUS charges for previously free service

2025-02-12T12:15:42Z

Gilolilo: /* Impact */

==Boot Loader Unlocking Controversy==
The ASUS boot loader unlocking tool disappearing is a prime example of how device ownership rights have eroded, where functionality that was present at the time of sale is no longer present years down the line.

===Background===
ASUS used to provide free bootloader unlocking capabilities for their Zenfone & Republic of Gamers (ROG) Android phones.<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref> This feature was actively advertised & was part of the company's appeal to tech-savvy consumers.

===Timeline of Events===
*In May 2023, ASUS disabled their bootloader unlocking tools without warning<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>
*The company began removing posts about bootloader unlocking from their ZenTalk forums<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>
*Forum moderators claimed the tools were "under maintenance" or being "overhauled for compliance reasons" without providing timeframes for restoration<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>
*By early 2024, ASUS began charging approximately €185 (excluding VAT) for bootloader unlocking<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/post-89720356</ref>

===Impact===
This issue goes over several key consumer protection concerns:

*'''Removal of Advertised Features''': The bootloader unlocking capability was an advertised feature that influenced people's buying decision, which was later removed.
*'''Lack of Transparency''': ASUS provided minimal communication about the change in policy, with documented cases of forum posts being removed & only vague explanations being provided.<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref><ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref> In one of their communications with a customer, they seem to have accidentaly shared internal communication templates revealing the discontinuation of the bootloader unlock tool, without making any public announcements. <ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/update-unoff-bl-unlock-24-01-20-asus-closed-this-method.4649465/post-89761447/</ref>
*'''Monetization of Previously Free Features''': The transition from a free service to a paid one, costing €185 (excluding VAT), is a significant change in the product's pricing structure after purchase<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/post-89720356</ref>
*'''Extended Device Lifespan Impact''': The change affects consumers' ability to maintain & update their devices beyond ASUS's official support window, which has been documented as "one of the worst software support commitments in the Android world"<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>
[[File:Lawsuit against asus over bootloader unlocking.jpg|thumb|Document of customer small claims suit against ASUS over bootloader unlocking. Credit Mishaal Rahman on twitter <ref>https://x.com/MishaalRahman/status/1776306579979047083</ref> for this document showing the customer suit against ASUS]]
[[File:ASUS concedes defeat to customer who filed small claims court suit.png|alt=email from ASUS in response to customer small claims suit against ASUS over bootloader unlocking. |thumb|email from ASUS in response to customer small claims suit against ASUS over bootloader unlocking. Credit to Mishaal Rahman on twitter for providing the screenshot. <ref>https://x.com/MishaalRahman/status/1776306579979047083/photo/1

</ref>]]

===Legal Implications===
This led to at least one successful legal challenge. In March 2024, a UK customer took ASUS to small claims court over this and got a full refund for both the device & the court fees, totaling £770 (~$973). This case potentially sets a precedent for other consumers affected by the policy change.<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>

===Consumer Response===
The response from the consumer community has been notably negative, with documented concerns about:
*The high cost of the unlocking service (€185 excluding VAT)<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/post-89720356</ref>
*The principle of charging for a previously free feature<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/</ref>

===EU Warranty Implications===
This has additional implications in the European Union, where:
*It is illegal to deny warranty repairs based on software modifications<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/</ref>
*ASUS has been reported to deny warranty service for devices with unlocked bootloaders, despite this legal protection<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/</ref>
*The company has offered "one time warranty repairs" with the condition of relocking the bootloader<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Modern consumer exploitation]]
[[Category:ASUS]]
[[Category:Software control]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]