Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Dyson battery lifespan reduced by design and difficult to repair

2025-01-18T20:15:44Z

Neox: fixed typo

== Incident ==
[[Dyson]] battery packs contain a Battery-Management System (BMS) with a chip that would be capable of balancing the individual cells. The manufacturer, however, has decided to leave out a few inexpensive but essential resistors, resulting in no balancing to take effect. As a result, the battery pack wears out much quicker than it should. <ref>https://hackaday.com/2022/05/23/fighting-back-against-dodgy-dyson-batteries/</ref>

Even if a user charges (using a third-party charger) and balances the individual cells of a battery pack, or even replaces them, the BMS will still not allow the battery to be charged, because its firmware writes 2 bytes into the configuration memory of the microcontroller that essentially bricks the battery pack.

== Impact on consumers ==
This incident makes the lifespan of the battery packs of Dyson products significantly shorter, forcing people to replace them more often.

== Affected product lines ==
Potentially all product lines newer than V6 are affected by this issue, although more information is required to confirm this.

* V6 and V7 models.<ref>https://github.com/tinfever/FU-Dyson-BMS?tab=readme-ov-file#compatible-vacuumsbatteries</ref>
* V10 and V11 models.<ref>https://github.com/davidmpye/V10_Dyson_BMS</ref>

== Workarounds ==
Open-source firmware has been written to un-brick the battery pack by overwriting the board firmware for some models using a 3.3V Arduino board.<ref>https://github.com/tinfever/FU-Dyson-BMS</ref><ref>https://github.com/davidmpye/V10_Dyson_BMS</ref><ref>https://github.com/kumdzio/PIC16LF1847arduino-programmer</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Right to repair]]
[[Category:Incidents]]

Cloudflare

2025-01-18T20:08:41Z

Neox: minor typo

{{Incomplete}}
==Forced ID theft and face recognition==

A full day after the sale of domain names, Cloudflare sends the customer a demand to present an ID card and their face in an automated video call with the third party Stripe within 24 hours to be analyzed by a face recognition system, threatening to cancel the sale unless the customer fulfills this requirement that the customer was not informed about before the sale, thereby making the domain names available for squatters to grab. The customer can lose their domain names either by simply not checking their email for 24 hours, which is likely as the sale has already completed and the customer has no reason to check their email again, or by the customer not agreeing to the procedure, which the customer should not, as ID cards are not made for use online. The customer's bank already has a procedure for verifying online purchases by popping up the bank app that has already been verified by visiting the bank in person, showing an ID card to a real person and signing a paper by hand. Stripe could have done like everyone else and delegate the procedure to the bank instead of inventing their own.

Cloudflare claims that any images used for verification will be deleted afterwards. This is an unverifiable claim. If Stripe for any reason does not delete the images, Stripe would surely not allow employees to disclose that this has happened. Deleting the images also makes the process ineffective, as anyone could present a fake ID card good enough to look real in the low quality of a web camera and then have the evidence deleted.

In the case documented, the second response from “Trust & Safety” is an unhelpful repetition of the first response, coming near the end of the 24 hour window, ignoring any details added by the customer in response to the first one. It asks the customer to confirm that the customer prefers not to proceed with the verification so that steps can be taken, but time is already running out, and the account was suspended before “Trust & Safety” could respond. A month later, “Trust & Safety” has still not responded. The notice that the account was suspended states that the suspension does not impact, disable, or remove current services, contradicting the initial demand. In reality, the domain names belonging to the account were cancelled, and available for strangers to register with other registrars.

<gallery>
Image:Cloudflare_email_1.png
Image:Cloudflare_email_2.png
Image:Cloudflare_email_3.png
Image:Cloudflare_email_4.png
</gallery>

[[Category:Companies]]

Consumer Rights Wiki:Living persons policy

2025-01-18T19:56:29Z

Neox: Leniancy -> Leniency

Articles about Living People, and mentions of Living People within other articles, should be treated with the utmost care. '''If you are not prepared to read this policy, and be thorough and careful in your edits, then do not attempt to include information about Living People in your edits.'''

(Below is adapted from [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons|Wikipedia's equivalent policy]])

Editors must take particular care when adding '''information about living persons''' to ''any'' page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere ''strictly'' to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to the Wiki's core [[Wiki Content Policies#verifiability|content policies]]:

* Neutral point of view (NPOV)
* Verifiability (V)
* No original research (NOR)

The Wiki must get the article ''right''. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Person Articles ("PAs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. This Wiki not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a PA, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

== Writing style ==

=== Tone ===
PAs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

=== Balance ===
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

'''The idea that every Wiki article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be ''temporarily'' unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does ''not'' apply to PAs. Given their potential impact on subjects' lives, PAs must be fair to their subjects at all times.'''

=== Attack pages ===
Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to. Non-administrators should tag them with <nowiki>{{db-attack}}</nowiki>. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.

== Reliable sources ==

=== Challenged or likely to be challenged ===
The Wiki's sourcing policy (via its reference to Wikipedia's sourcing policy), [[Wiki Content Policies#Verifiability|Verifiability]], says that all quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' must be attributed to a reliable, source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that '''contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion'''. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a PA or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

=== Avoid misuse of primary sources ===
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do '''''not''''' use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do '''''not''''' use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. '''Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it ''may'' be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source''', subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

=== Self-published sources ===

==== Avoid self-published sources ====
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published '''by the subject of the article'''. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

==== Using the subject as a self-published source ====
There are living persons who publish material '''about themselves''', such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

# it is not unduly self-serving;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.

=== Avoid gossip and feedback loops ===
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wiki article is picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wiki article to support the original edit.

=== Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced ===
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

# is unsourced or poorly sourced;
# is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see: [[Wiki Content Policies#No Original Research]]);
# relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the PA (see: Using the subject as a self-published source, above); or
# relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.

Note that what counts as exempt under PA can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter to administrators.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear PA violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page [Not yet implemented, using the Discord for now].

=== Further reading, External links, and See also ===
External links about living persons, whether in PAs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of PAs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a PA may be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of that PA with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the external links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

"See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to the Wiki's policy of no original research.

== Presumption in favor of privacy ==
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, PAs should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

=== Public figures ===
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and PAs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find ''multiple'' reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

* '''Example:''' "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
* '''Example:''' A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was ''alleged'' to have had the affair, not that the affair actually ''occurred''.

[Editor's note: this example is fine for now as it illustrates the point, but can be replaced for a directly relevant one later down the line]

If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.

=== People who are relatively unknown ===
Wiki articles may contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include ''only'' material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). '''Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.'''

=== Privacy of personal information and using primary sources ===
This is an area where the Wiki's policy substantially deviates from Wikipedia's policy. '''Personal details of Living Persons, aside from their names, and their professional roles, are NOT relevant to the Wiki. This includes their locations, age, marital status, familial relations, hobbies, interests, and any other material not relating to the topic of consumer protection.'''

The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.

If you see inappropriate personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a PA or anywhere on the Wiki, edit the page to remove it and '''contact the oversight team''' [just contact an admin for now, until an oversight team is established] so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. To reduce the chances of triggering the Streisand effect, use a bland/generic edit summary and ''do not'' mention that you will be requesting Oversight.

==== Privacy of names ====
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

=== Deadnaming of transgender people ===
Sometimes vandals come to Wikis to intentionally deadname transgender people in violation of our guidelines. In such cases, you should revert the change as we treat it as a privacy interest and contact an administrator willing to handle the redaction of the deadname by revision deletions to redact it from the edit logs as a PA violation.

If a particular PA article is repeatedly vandalized, one can request an increase of the page protections by an admin.

== Use in continued disputes ==
Articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. The Wiki, however, is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Misusing Wikis to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of PA articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to the Wiki itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's PA article or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a PA article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

== Applicability ==
PA applies to all material about living persons anywhere on the Wiki, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.

=== Non-article space ===
'''Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.''' When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating <q>This link has serious allegations about the subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?</q> The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The PA policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what the Wiki is not. However, minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages. Although this policy applies to posts about Wiki users in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks.

=== Usernames ===
Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, or contentious statements or material about living persons should be '''immediately blocked''' and suppressed from all revisions and logs. This includes usernames that disclose any kind of non-public, private, or personally identifiable information about living persons, regardless of the legitimacy of the information and whether or not the information is correct. Requests for removing such usernames from logs should be reported to the Oversight team for evaluation.

=== Images ===
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited.

There is clear consensus against using AI-generated images to depict subjects of PAs. Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement or where an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable) are subject to case-by-case consensus. Images of living persons that have been created by Wiki users or others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Image_use_policy|Wikipedia's Image use policy]].

=== Recently dead or probably dead ===
Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy '''''does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources.''''' The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Even without confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead ''unless'' reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. If the date of birth is unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in the article—if it is plausible that the person was born within the last 115 years and is therefore covered by this policy.

=== Legal persons and groups ===
This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the PA policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a PA problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

== Relationship between the subject, the article, and the Wiki ==

=== Dealing with edits by the subject of the article ===
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. Leniency should be shown to PA subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. '''Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.'''

Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When a logged-out editor blanks all or part of a PA, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005, and we accept it for this Wiki:<blockquote>Wiki: Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of the Wiki will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves, there is a temptation—especially if apparently wrong or strongly negative information is included in such an article—to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity for the new user. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap, rather than see this phenomenon as a new editor mistake.</blockquote>

=== Dealing with articles about yourself ===
The Wiki has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, as well as many users willing to help and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page (''see Help:Talk pages''), or place <nowiki>{{help me}}</nowiki> on your user talk page. You may also contact an admin with an explanation of your concern, and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly sourced.

If you are an article subject and you find the article about you contains your personal information or potentially libelous statements, '''contact the oversight team [or any admin]''' so that they can evaluate the issue and possibly remove it from the page history.

Please bear in mind that this Wiki is almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite or demanding behavior, even if entirely understandable, will often be less effective.

=== Legal issues ===
Subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wiki page, whether in a PA or elsewhere, may contact '''[INSERT POINT OF CONTACT HERE]'''. Please e-mail '''[INSERT POINT OF CONTACT HERE]''' with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see '''here'''. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself.

As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article.

== Role of administrators ==

=== Page protection and blocks ===
Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear PA violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases, they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator.

=== Contentious topics ===
"All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic. In this area, the Wiki's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project.

=== Deletion ===

==== Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking ====
Material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion if requested.

Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus has demonstrated support of re-creation that is consistent with our policies.

==== Relatively unknown subjects ====
Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, ''may'' be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, ''may'' be deleted after discussions have been completed."

==== Restoration ====
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith PA objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with the Wiki's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In the case of an administrator deleting a complete article, wherever possible such disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article.

[[Category:CAT|Policy]]

AirAsia

2025-01-18T19:39:18Z

Neox: Removed a space before a dot (the sentence ended like this .) and corrected from "user" to "users"

AirAsia is a budget airline based in Malaysia. In 2007, The New York Times described AirAsia as a pioneer of low-cost travel in Asia. As of January 2025, they serve Asia, the Middle East, and Australia.

=== Summary (TLDR) ===
AirAsia secretly and forcefully subscribes any user who creates or links an account with them to 23 different types of spam ("AirAsia communications").

# Users are neither made aware of this fact nor presented with the option to opt out.
# Normally companies bury opt-in text within their [[terms and conditions]], but even the AirAsia privacy terms page is vague about this.
# Unsubscribing from AirAsia's spam is an 8-step process where users have to log into their account.

=== Non-consensual opt-in to AirAsia marketing spam ===
[[File:Airasia signup page 1.png|thumb|AirAsia sign up dialog that pops up after you select a flight to book. Multiple sign up/easy sign in options are pushed with large, colored icons while the no sign up option is presented as a small "Continue as guest" in plain text at the bottom.]]
[[File:Airasia signup page.png|thumb|AirAsia sign up page with no notification to users that they will be automatically opted in to receiving "informational" and marketing emails from 23 different AirAsia sources and no ability for users to opt out directly at sign up.]]
[[File:Airasia spam unsubscribe step 2.PNG.png|thumb|AirAsia Notification Preferences page showing 23 different sources of promotional emails that every user is automatically opted into upon creation of an AirAsia account]]
AirAsia secretly and automatically forces users to opt in to 23 different types of promotional and marketing emails (referred to as "communications") when they create or link an account.

# When booking a flight with AirAsia, a popup dialog appears that pushes users to sign in, or create or link an account. The sign-up and and sign-in options are pushed with large font sizes and prominent, colored icons.
# [[File:Airasia spam unsubscribe step 1.png|thumb|Clicking on an unsubscribe link in an email brings users to this page. AirAsia forces users to log in before they can unsubscribe. ]]The option to book a flight is presented as a small, plain-text link "Continue as guest" at the bottom of the popup dialog. (SEE IMAGE 1)
# During sign-up or log-in, users are not made aware that they will automatically be opted in to receiving spam "communication" emails from AirAsia. They are also forced into opting in by default, with no ability to opt out directly on the same page.
# Typically companies sneak promotional and marketing email opt in into their [[terms of service]] or Privacy Terms page, but on the AirAsia Privacy Statement page<ref>https://www.airasia.com/aa/about-us/en/gb/privacy-statement.html</ref>, they are still extremely vague about the fact they are opting users into their spam, automatically, forcefully, and unknowingly. The terms therein that refer to promotional material are:
## "The information may be used to provide you with location-based services such as search results and '''marketing content'''." ("Information collection" section<ref>https://www.airasia.com/aa/about-us/en/gb/privacy-statement.html#information</ref>)
## "AirAsia and AirAsia Group of Companies who have access to this Personal Information with our permission and who need to know or have access to this Personal Information in order to: perform the service requested by you (including to make, administer, and manage reservations or handle payments, '''"single sign-on"''', and customer service); analyze how you use this Website and other websites belonging to AirAsia or AirAsia Group of Companies, improve and '''provide new and personalized offers, products and services, and marketing, for purposes of research, analytics, to develop and improve any existing and future products or services offered by us''', to explore further potential initiatives, to optimise research, improve our forecasting abilities, and for other business purposes of AirAsia or AirAsia Group of Companies; detect, prevent, and investigate fraudulent transactions and/or activities, other illegal activities, and data breaches; internal (audit/compliance) investigations; or as otherwise required or permitted by applicable law." ("Use of information collected" section<ref>https://www.airasia.com/aa/about-us/en/gb/privacy-statement.html#informationuse</ref>)
## '''We may share your Personal Information to: data analytics, marketing agency, third party suppliers of products and services, business partners or service providers, parties which have business or contractual dealings with AirAsia and the AirAsia Group of Companies''', and other third party who is able to demonstrate that you have explicitly consented to the disclosure of your Personal Information by us to such third party (collectively known as “Authorised Third Party”) ("Sharing of Information Collected" section<ref>https://www.airasia.com/aa/about-us/en/gb/privacy-statement.html#sharing</ref>)
# The same Privacy Statement does provide steps to "Manage your marketing communications"<ref>https://www.airasia.com/aa/about-us/en/gb/privacy-statement.html#marketingcomm</ref>, which is a 3-step process assuming the user does this after creating their account and/or booking their flight. The steps highlighted on that page are:
## Click on Account (your name with the user icon in the upper right side of the page)
## Click on My Account
## Click on Notifications Preferences
# However, since users are not made aware that they will be opted into a barrage of spam emails, they would not be aware or have reason to go into "Notification Preferences" immediately after account creation/booking.
# Since most users will learn about the spam later, the unsubscribe process is in reality an 8-step process that takes eight clicks instead of the three suggested by AirAsia's Privacy Statement page (see below).

=== Multi-step friction to unsubscribe from AirAsia marketing spam ===
Since most users will learn about the spam later, the unsubscribe process is in reality an 8-step process that takes eight clicks and user login, instead of the three suggested by AirAsia's Privacy Statement page:
# User clicks on unsubscribe button at bottom of AirAsia promotional email.
# Instead of directly unsubscribing the user or bringing them to an unsubscribe confirmation page, users are instead linked to their account "Notification Preferences" page where they have to log in.
# After entering their log-in details, users have to also input a [[one-time password]]. This step takes at least five additional clicks, where the user has to:
## Click on their email tab or client (assuming they have it opened)
## Click on the AirAsia OTP email (if they do not receive it immediately, refreshing may incur additional clicks)
## Copy or remember the OTP, and click back to the AirAsia login tab
## Paste the OTP into the form
## Click continue
# User is now on their Notification Preferences page where they get to see the 23 different types of AirAsia spam they never knew they opted into. Assuming they never wanted and don't want to continue receiving any of these spam emails, they would click on "Pause all emails".
# User also has to click on "Pause all communications" if they wanted to stop spam from coming in through push notifications and WhatsApp.
## Another [[dark pattern]] here from AirAsia is "Pause all communications", which implies the user would stop receiving any communications whatsoever. Users would typically want their booking emails, travel itinerary, etc., so they would not think of selecting this option.
## The fine print above this button says, "Your account activities, transactional updates, payment updates, booking and delivery information are compulsory", meaning such emails will be delivered in any case and "communications" in "Pause all communications" really refers to promotional and marketing spam.

== References ==
[[Category:Capital A]]

Click-to-cancel

2025-01-18T19:06:32Z

Neox: fixed typos

The "Click to Cancel" rule is an FTC rule which requires that subscription services make it as easy to cancel the service as it was to sign up<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring</ref>. This is designed to combat an anti-consumer practice, where a subscription service makes it very easy to sign up for a service, but requires the customer to jump through hoops to cancel the subscription. The law has been finalized, but does not come into effect until May 14, 2025<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-6</ref>.

The rule prohibits the following<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/NegOptions-1page-Oct2024-v2.pdf</ref><ref name=":0">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-11-15/pdf/2024-25534.pdf</ref>:

* to misrepresent any material fact made while marketing using a negative option feature
* to fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a negative option feature
* to fail to obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the negative option feature before charging the consumer
* to fail to provide a simple mechanism to cancel the negative option feature and immediately halt charges

A "negative option feature" is defined by the FTC as 'a provision in an offer or agreement to sell or provide any goods or services ‘‘under which the customer’s silence or failure to take an affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller as acceptance of the offer.’’ '<ref name=":0" /> In other words, a service where once a subscription is initiated, the customer will be billed unless they cancel the subscription.

The "Click to Cancel" rule is not limited to online services, as the name might suggest. It includes, but is not limited to "Interactive Electronic Media, telephone, print, and in-person transactions"<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/15/2024-25534/negative-option-rule#sectno-citation-425.1</ref>. The cancellation mechanism must be "at least as simple as consent"<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1164</ref>. The customer may not be required to interact with a representative, whether a real human or a chat bot, if the customer was not required to do so when they signed up for the service<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1166</ref>. For services which were signed up for in-person, the seller must allow cancellation online or over the phone<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1168</ref>.

=== Examples of Abuse ===

==== Gym Memberships ====
Gym memberships are a notorious example of being significantly more difficult to cancel than they were to sign up for. While some states, such as California<ref>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2863&showamends=false</ref> already had laws analogous to CtC, gym locations outside of those locations have continued to make it easy to sign up, yet difficult to cancel.

===== Planet Fitness =====
Prior to state-level laws, their FAQ stated that "You can fill out a cancellation form at the front desk of your home club, or send a letter (preferably via certified mail) to your club requesting cancellation. Memberships can’t, unfortunately, be cancelled by email or phone"<ref>https://www.planetfitness.com/about-planet-fitness/customer-service/membership-faqs</ref> despite allowing online signups. As of Jan 18, 2025, their terms state "our cancellation process may vary from club to club", and that "Some members may also be eligible to cancel their membership online based on their membership type and the location of their home club"<ref>https://archive.ph/XSG0Q</ref>.

===== LA Fitness =====
In a similar vein, LA Fitness's current policy states that "via your online account or as may otherwise be provided in your agreement (for example, depending on your state of enrollment, you may be able to cancel by email)", but previously stated that they "recommend you mail the notice by certified mail and keep a record for your files. Or, you can deliver the notice directly to the Operations Manager at the nearest LA Fitness facility between 9AM and 5PM on Monday through Friday" <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20210616083544/https://lafitness.com/Pages/MembershipQuestions.aspx#</ref>.

==== Free Trial/Free-to-Pay ====
"Free-to-Pay" is a technical term for a free trial<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1598063/negative_option_policy_statement-10-22-2021-tobureau.pdf</ref>. In many cases, rather than providing a free trial with no strings attached, and then billing the customer if they decide to sign up, the vendor collects payment information as a prerequisite of the free trial, and automatically bills the customer if they fail to affirmatively cancel the trial.

While it does not outright prohibit this practice, the click-to-cancel rule partially alleviates these issues by requiring clear disclosures and consent. According to state AGs, 'advertisements for free-to-pay conversion offers often lure consumers by promising a “free” benefit while failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose future payment obligations'<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-83</ref>. The FTC also states that<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-87</ref>:<blockquote>Other studies reveal similar trends. TINA noted the FBI's internet Crime Complaint Center recorded a rise in complaints about free trial offers, growing from 1,738 in 2015 to 2,486 in 2017, with losses totaling more than $15 million. Similarly, a 2019 Bankrate.com survey cited by NCL found that 59% of consumers have signed up for “free trials” that automatically converted into a recurring payment obligation “against their will.” In NCL's view, these data point to “a troubling, and costly problem for American consumers.” </blockquote>

==== Adobe ====
[[Adobe]] allegedly "trapped customers into year-long subscriptions through hidden early termination fees and numerous cancellation hurdles", according to the FTC<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling</ref>. Some of their plans are confusing "annual paid monthly" plans, in which the customer receives a discount as if they had signed up for an annual subscription, but are billed monthly. The FTC alleges that they did not prominently disclose the early termination fee associated with these plans, which is half of the remaining monthly payments if the consumer cancels before the annual subscription runs its course. The complaint also alleges that the cancellation process is difficult and costly:<blockquote>In addition to failing to disclose the ETF to consumers when they subscribe, the complaint also alleges that Adobe uses the ETF to ambush consumers to deter them from cancelling their subscriptions. The complaint also alleges that Adobe’s cancellation processes are designed to make cancellation difficult for consumers. When consumers have attempted to cancel their subscription on the company’s website, they have been forced to navigate numerous pages in order to cancel.When consumers reach out to Adobe’s customer service to cancel, they encounter resistance and delay from Adobe representatives. Consumers also experience other obstacles, such as dropped calls and chats, and multiple transfers. Some consumers who thought they had successfully cancelled their subscription reported that the company continued to charge them until discovering the charges on their credit card statements.</blockquote>

===== Brigit =====
Brigit is a cash advance app. The FTC complaint alleges that the company "used manipulative design tricks to create a confusing and misleading cancellation process that made it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/11/ftc-sends-more-17-million-consumers-harmed-brigits-deceptive-claims-junk-fees-confusing-cancellation</ref>."

<references />

BMW feature lockout scandal

2025-01-18T18:33:56Z

Neox: /* References */

Creators Note: created using NotebookLM as a test. message me if this needs revisions and or not allowed. Needs work I suspect also (first article)

== BMW Adaptive Suspension as a Service ==
{{UnderDevelopment}} {{Incident}} This article documents BMW's practice of including the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many vehicles, while requiring customers to pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature. This model exemplifies modern consumer exploitation by eroding traditional notions of ownership and leveraging subscription services to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product.

== Background ==
Modern automotive manufacturers are increasingly using software and subscription models to control features within their vehicles [1, 2]. This approach differs significantly from older consumer protection issues which focused on unsafe products or misleading advertising [3]. BMW's adaptive suspension model is one example of how companies are shifting towards business practices that limit a consumer's right to ownership [2, 4].

== The Incident ==
BMW includes the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many of its vehicles, but the customer must pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature [1]. The way this is offered is as follows [1]:

* It is available as a factory option
* It can be added to certain cars that weren't optioned that way originally via the 'connected drive store' in the car
* It is available as a monthly or yearly subscription
* It can be bought outright for a one time charge of $500

This means that even though a consumer has physically purchased the car with the suspension components, they do not have full control or use of those components without paying an additional fee [1]. The cost of the equipment was already included in the price of the vehicle, meaning that the customer is effectively paying twice for the same components [1]. This is a shift from traditional ownership models where the consumer has full access to the functionality of purchased goods [2].

This business model alters the definition of "purchase" and "own," as described in the Consumer Action Taskforce mission statement [2, 5]. The consumer does not have complete control over the purchased item, as the manufacturer can effectively disable or restrict functionality through software [2]. This raises questions about what it means to own a product, if the manufacturer retains control over key features [2, 5].

This practice is not an isolated incident. BMW has previously implemented similar business practices such as charging a subscription fee for access to heated seats, despite the hardware being installed in the vehicle [1]. This demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that uses software to limit a consumer's access to features that they have already paid for [1, 2].

== Analysis ==
This incident highlights the following aspects of "new" consumer protection issues [2, 5]:

* '''Control Through Software''': BMW controls access to the adaptive suspension through software, requiring an additional payment to unlock a feature that is already physically present in the vehicle [1].
* '''Subscription Model''': The option of paying a monthly or yearly subscription to use the suspension exemplifies how companies are turning ownership into a service, rather than selling products outright [1, 2]. This model means that the customer is effectively renting a feature, rather than owning it.
* '''Erosion of Ownership''': The way that BMW offers this feature alters the definition of ownership, as the consumer does not have full control over the functionality of their vehicle, despite having already purchased the components that enable the adaptive suspension [1, 2].
* '''Exploitation of Legal Loopholes''': This practice is not explicitly illegal but exploits legal loopholes and relies on complexity to prevent resistance, which is a common feature of many new forms of consumer exploitation [5].
* '''Removal of the right to say no''': By including the hardware for the adaptive suspension in the vehicles, BMW is effectively removing the right of the consumer to refuse the sale or to own a product outright without needing to interact with the manufacturer [1, 4].
* '''Difficult to Understand and Resist''': The way in which BMW offers its adaptive suspension, with the option of a subscription or one time payment, is designed to be complex, creating a level of 'fatigue' that makes it harder for consumers to resist [1, 5].

== Broader Implications ==
This incident demonstrates the broader challenges facing consumers with regard to software and subscriptions that are increasingly prevalent in modern products [1, 2]. It exemplifies the ways in which companies are shifting away from traditional notions of ownership by using software locks and subscription services to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product [1, 2, 5].

== See Also ==

* [[Software as a Service]]
* [[Right to Repair movement]]
* [[Consumer Rights]]
* [[Subscription Business Model]]

== References ==
<references>
<ref name="RossmannBMW">[1] Rossmann, Louis. "BMW SaaS model; Suspension-as-a-service. It's time to start pirating cars." ''YouTube'', 15 Jan. 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_4OBm7IJ8].</ref>
<ref name="Consumer Taskforce">[6] Consumer Action Taskforce. "Mission Statement." ''Consumer Action Taskforce Wiki'', 15 Jan. 2025, [https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php?title=Mission_statement&oldid=1086].</ref>
</references>

BMW feature lockout scandal

2025-01-18T18:30:19Z

Neox: Added a name for the consumer taskforce reference

Creators Note: created using NotebookLM as a test. message me if this needs revisions and or not allowed. Needs work I suspect also (first article)

== BMW Adaptive Suspension as a Service ==
{{UnderDevelopment}} {{Incident}} This article documents BMW's practice of including the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many vehicles, while requiring customers to pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature. This model exemplifies modern consumer exploitation by eroding traditional notions of ownership and leveraging subscription services to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product.

== Background ==
Modern automotive manufacturers are increasingly using software and subscription models to control features within their vehicles [1, 2]. This approach differs significantly from older consumer protection issues which focused on unsafe products or misleading advertising [3]. BMW's adaptive suspension model is one example of how companies are shifting towards business practices that limit a consumer's right to ownership [2, 4].

== The Incident ==
BMW includes the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many of its vehicles, but the customer must pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature [1]. The way this is offered is as follows [1]:

* It is available as a factory option
* It can be added to certain cars that weren't optioned that way originally via the 'connected drive store' in the car
* It is available as a monthly or yearly subscription
* It can be bought outright for a one time charge of $500

This means that even though a consumer has physically purchased the car with the suspension components, they do not have full control or use of those components without paying an additional fee [1]. The cost of the equipment was already included in the price of the vehicle, meaning that the customer is effectively paying twice for the same components [1]. This is a shift from traditional ownership models where the consumer has full access to the functionality of purchased goods [2].

This business model alters the definition of "purchase" and "own," as described in the Consumer Action Taskforce mission statement [2, 5]. The consumer does not have complete control over the purchased item, as the manufacturer can effectively disable or restrict functionality through software [2]. This raises questions about what it means to own a product, if the manufacturer retains control over key features [2, 5].

This practice is not an isolated incident. BMW has previously implemented similar business practices such as charging a subscription fee for access to heated seats, despite the hardware being installed in the vehicle [1]. This demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that uses software to limit a consumer's access to features that they have already paid for [1, 2].

== Analysis ==
This incident highlights the following aspects of "new" consumer protection issues [2, 5]:

* '''Control Through Software''': BMW controls access to the adaptive suspension through software, requiring an additional payment to unlock a feature that is already physically present in the vehicle [1].
* '''Subscription Model''': The option of paying a monthly or yearly subscription to use the suspension exemplifies how companies are turning ownership into a service, rather than selling products outright [1, 2]. This model means that the customer is effectively renting a feature, rather than owning it.
* '''Erosion of Ownership''': The way that BMW offers this feature alters the definition of ownership, as the consumer does not have full control over the functionality of their vehicle, despite having already purchased the components that enable the adaptive suspension [1, 2].
* '''Exploitation of Legal Loopholes''': This practice is not explicitly illegal but exploits legal loopholes and relies on complexity to prevent resistance, which is a common feature of many new forms of consumer exploitation [5].
* '''Removal of the right to say no''': By including the hardware for the adaptive suspension in the vehicles, BMW is effectively removing the right of the consumer to refuse the sale or to own a product outright without needing to interact with the manufacturer [1, 4].
* '''Difficult to Understand and Resist''': The way in which BMW offers its adaptive suspension, with the option of a subscription or one time payment, is designed to be complex, creating a level of 'fatigue' that makes it harder for consumers to resist [1, 5].

== Broader Implications ==
This incident demonstrates the broader challenges facing consumers with regard to software and subscriptions that are increasingly prevalent in modern products [1, 2]. It exemplifies the ways in which companies are shifting away from traditional notions of ownership by using software locks and subscription services to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product [1, 2, 5].

== See Also ==

* [[Software as a Service]]
* [[Right to Repair movement]]
* [[Consumer Rights]]
* [[Subscription Business Model]]

== References ==
<references>
<ref name="Video reference">[1] Rossmann, Louis. "BMW SaaS model; Suspension-as-a-service. It's time to start pirating cars." ''YouTube'', 15 Jan. 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_4OBm7IJ8].</ref>
<ref name="Consumer Taskforce">[6] Consumer Action Taskforce. "Mission Statement." ''Consumer Action Taskforce Wiki'', 15 Jan. 2025, [https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php?title=Mission_statement&oldid=1086].</ref>
</references>

BMW feature lockout scandal

2025-01-18T18:22:35Z

Neox: Added a name to the reference and changed the link from rickroll to the actual video

Creators Note: created using NotebookLM as a test. message me if this needs revisions and or not allowed. Needs work I suspect also (first article)

== BMW Adaptive Suspension as a Service ==
{{UnderDevelopment}} {{Incident}} This article documents BMW's practice of including the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many vehicles, while requiring customers to pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature. This model exemplifies modern consumer exploitation by eroding traditional notions of ownership and leveraging subscription services to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product.

== Background ==
Modern automotive manufacturers are increasingly using software and subscription models to control features within their vehicles [1, 2]. This approach differs significantly from older consumer protection issues which focused on unsafe products or misleading advertising [3]. BMW's adaptive suspension model is one example of how companies are shifting towards business practices that limit a consumer's right to ownership [2, 4].

== The Incident ==
BMW includes the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many of its vehicles, but the customer must pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature [1]. The way this is offered is as follows [1]:

* It is available as a factory option
* It can be added to certain cars that weren't optioned that way originally via the 'connected drive store' in the car
* It is available as a monthly or yearly subscription
* It can be bought outright for a one time charge of $500

This means that even though a consumer has physically purchased the car with the suspension components, they do not have full control or use of those components without paying an additional fee [1]. The cost of the equipment was already included in the price of the vehicle, meaning that the customer is effectively paying twice for the same components [1]. This is a shift from traditional ownership models where the consumer has full access to the functionality of purchased goods [2].

This business model alters the definition of "purchase" and "own," as described in the Consumer Action Taskforce mission statement [2, 5]. The consumer does not have complete control over the purchased item, as the manufacturer can effectively disable or restrict functionality through software [2]. This raises questions about what it means to own a product, if the manufacturer retains control over key features [2, 5].

This practice is not an isolated incident. BMW has previously implemented similar business practices such as charging a subscription fee for access to heated seats, despite the hardware being installed in the vehicle [1]. This demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that uses software to limit a consumer's access to features that they have already paid for [1, 2].

== Analysis ==
This incident highlights the following aspects of "new" consumer protection issues [2, 5]:

* '''Control Through Software''': BMW controls access to the adaptive suspension through software, requiring an additional payment to unlock a feature that is already physically present in the vehicle [1].
* '''Subscription Model''': The option of paying a monthly or yearly subscription to use the suspension exemplifies how companies are turning ownership into a service, rather than selling products outright [1, 2]. This model means that the customer is effectively renting a feature, rather than owning it.
* '''Erosion of Ownership''': The way that BMW offers this feature alters the definition of ownership, as the consumer does not have full control over the functionality of their vehicle, despite having already purchased the components that enable the adaptive suspension [1, 2].
* '''Exploitation of Legal Loopholes''': This practice is not explicitly illegal but exploits legal loopholes and relies on complexity to prevent resistance, which is a common feature of many new forms of consumer exploitation [5].
* '''Removal of the right to say no''': By including the hardware for the adaptive suspension in the vehicles, BMW is effectively removing the right of the consumer to refuse the sale or to own a product outright without needing to interact with the manufacturer [1, 4].
* '''Difficult to Understand and Resist''': The way in which BMW offers its adaptive suspension, with the option of a subscription or one time payment, is designed to be complex, creating a level of 'fatigue' that makes it harder for consumers to resist [1, 5].

== Broader Implications ==
This incident demonstrates the broader challenges facing consumers with regard to software and subscriptions that are increasingly prevalent in modern products [1, 2]. It exemplifies the ways in which companies are shifting away from traditional notions of ownership by using software locks and subscription services to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product [1, 2, 5].

== See Also ==

* [[Software as a Service]]
* [[Right to Repair movement]]
* [[Consumer Rights]]
* [[Subscription Business Model]]

== References ==
<references><ref name="Video reference">[1] Rossmann, Louis. "BMW SaaS model; Suspension-as-a-service. It's time to start pirating cars." ''YouTube'', 15 Jan. 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_4OBm7IJ8].</ref> <ref>[6] Consumer Action Taskforce. "Mission Statement." ''Consumer Action Taskforce Wiki'', 15 Jan. 2025, [https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php?title=Mission_statement&oldid=1086].</ref></references>

User:Neox

2025-01-18T03:17:39Z

Neox: Description added

Hi! :)

I'm Onur, a 29 year old man from France.

I'll help moderate this wiki as much as I can!

Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Dyson battery lifespan reduced by design and difficult to repair

Cloudflare

Consumer Rights Wiki:Living persons policy

AirAsia

Meta

Click-to-cancel

BMW feature lockout scandal

BMW feature lockout scandal

BMW feature lockout scandal

User:Neox