Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

User:FoulerTripod363/ User testing for mandatory paid subscription into Tado Smart Thermostat app

2026-01-04T06:14:15Z

Tom Bombadillo:

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Tado
|StartDate=May 2025
|EndDate=
|Status=
|ProductLine=
|Product=Tado Mobile Application
|ArticleType=
|Type=
|Description=Tado locked previously free mobile app services behind a monthly subscription, and closed their community discussion page.
}}

[[Tado]] rolled mandatory subscription for its phone application, pay-walling access to the Tado app . Pay-walling the free application locks away its core features like temperature control, smart schedule, and energy saving report. After user backlash the company rolled back their decision and claimed it was an internal experiment that rolled out never clarifying if the experiment is done.

==Background==
[[File:Tado original subscription plan for the tado app.png|alt=The image displays the original pricing of tado plans before the mandatory testing rolled. The free tier allowed the use of: temperature control, scheduling, and app updates|thumb|The image displays the original pricing of [[tado]] plans before the mandatory testing rolled]]
[[wikipedia:Tado°|Tado]] (tado° GmbH) is a Munich based technology company that specializes in manufacturing home thermostats and air conditioning controls. In March 2025, Tado announced<ref>{{Cite web |title=tado° announces price adjustment for Auto-Assist subscription to fuel and drive forward future innovations and enhancements |url=https://www.tado.com/en/press/tado-announces-price-adjustment-auto-assist-subscription |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=tado°}}</ref> auto assist subscription. The app serves the critical role for the Tado products like controlling the temperature.

==Tado Pay-Walling The Free Tier==
Tado users reported on the Tado community website<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tado Marketing Test - tado Community |url=https://community.tado.com/en-gb/discussion/26598/tado-marketing-test/p1 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/mPjye |archive-date=2025-02-20 |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=tado Community}}</ref> and Reddit<ref>{{Cite web |title=Monthly fee for app usage is live? : r/tado |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/tado/comments/1ird12s/monthly_fee_for_app_usage_is_live/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=Reddit}}</ref> that they are not allowed to use the app without paying the basic tier subscription fee loosing control of their device.<gallery mode="slideshow">
File:Tado app pay-wall screen.png|Tado App paywall denying access basic control control over the consumer's Tado devices without paying a subscription fee
File:Tado original community post.png|Tado original community post complain over the new changes
File:Tado customer locked out.webp|Tado's app subscription live
File:Tado new subscription as seen in a reddit post.jpg|Tado new subscription as seen in a reddit post
</gallery>On Feb 2025, The Verge<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Tado told users it would start charging for its app {{!}} The Verge |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/615975/tado-smart-thermostat-tests-app-fee |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=The Verge}}</ref> reported on the issue that users of the app started to receive notifications that [[Tado]] introduced a new tier to its user, that to continue using the Tado application users must subscribe to the Basic tier. Later the company clarified it is a "marketing test" reverting to the original subscription plan. After the immense backlash over the uncertainty whether the test is still continuing, or the fact that they were involuntarily involved in this test loosing access to their hardware Tado has completely shutdown the community page without an explanation and any link for the community page is automatically redirected to the support page<ref>{{Cite web |title=tado Support: Help & Resources for your Devices {{!}} tado |url=https://www.tado.com/en/customer-services/support |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=tado}}</ref>.

==Tado's response==
Tado spokesperson Jason Collie has commented on the incident to The Verge with "As is typical in the industry, tado° is routinely doing marketing tests and research, and looks at customer feedback every day. Those involved in this test retained full access to the tado° App,"<ref name=":0" />.
==References==
{{reflist}}

User:FoulerTripod363/ User testing for mandatory paid subscription into Tado Smart Thermostat app

2026-01-04T06:10:30Z

Tom Bombadillo:

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Tado
|StartDate=May 2025
|EndDate=
|Status=
|ProductLine=
|Product=Tado Mobile Application
|ArticleType=
|Type=
|Description=Tado locked previously free mobile app services behind a monthly subscription, and closed their community discussion page.
}}[[Tado]] rolled mandatory subscription for its phone application, pay-walling access to the Tado app . Pay-walling the free application locks away its core features like temperature control, smart schedule, and energy saving report. After user backlash the company rolled back their decision and claimed it was an internal experiment that rolled out never clarifying if the experiment is done.

==Background==
[[File:Tado original subscription plan for the tado app.png|alt=The image displays the original pricing of tado plans before the mandatory testing rolled. The free tier allowed the use of: temperature control, scheduling, and app updates|thumb|The image displays the original pricing of [[tado]] plans before the mandatory testing rolled]]
[[wikipedia:Tado°|Tado]] (tado° GmbH) is a Munich based technology company that specializes in manufacturing home thermostats and air conditioning controls. In March 2025, Tado announced<ref>{{Cite web |title=tado° announces price adjustment for Auto-Assist subscription to fuel and drive forward future innovations and enhancements |url=https://www.tado.com/en/press/tado-announces-price-adjustment-auto-assist-subscription |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=tado°}}</ref> auto assist subscription. The app serves the critical role for the Tado products like controlling the temperature.

==Tado Pay-Walling The Free Tier==
Tado users reported on the Tado community website<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tado Marketing Test - tado Community |url=https://community.tado.com/en-gb/discussion/26598/tado-marketing-test/p1 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/mPjye |archive-date=2025-02-20 |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=tado Community}}</ref> and Reddit<ref>{{Cite web |title=Monthly fee for app usage is live? : r/tado |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/tado/comments/1ird12s/monthly_fee_for_app_usage_is_live/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=Reddit}}</ref> that they are not allowed to use the app without paying the basic tier subscription fee loosing control of their device.<gallery mode="slideshow">
File:Tado app pay-wall screen.png|Tado App paywall denying access basic control control over the consumer's Tado devices without paying a subscription fee
File:Tado original community post.png|Tado original community post complain over the new changes
File:Tado customer locked out.webp|Tado's app subscription live
File:Tado new subscription as seen in a reddit post.jpg|Tado new subscription as seen in a reddit post
</gallery>On Feb 2025, The Verge<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Tado told users it would start charging for its app {{!}} The Verge |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/615975/tado-smart-thermostat-tests-app-fee |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=The Verge}}</ref> reported on the issue that users of the app started to receive notifications that [[Tado]] introduced a new tier to its user, that to continue using the Tado application users must subscribe to the Basic tier. Later the company clarified it is a "marketing test" reverting to the original subscription plan. After the immense backlash over the uncertainty whether the test is still continuing, or the fact that they were involuntarily involved in this test loosing access to their hardware Tado has completely shutdown the community page without an explanation and any link for the community page is automatically redirected to the support page<ref>{{Cite web |title=tado Support: Help & Resources for your Devices {{!}} tado |url=https://www.tado.com/en/customer-services/support |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=tado}}</ref>.

==Tado's response==
Tado spokesperson Jason Collie has commented on the incident to The Verge with "As is typical in the industry, tado° is routinely doing marketing tests and research, and looks at customer feedback every day. Those involved in this test retained full access to the tado° App,"<ref name=":0" />.
==References==
{{reflist}}

DCS sues small YouTuber for accurate review

2026-01-04T05:40:42Z

Tom Bombadillo:

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Deep Cycle Systems
|StartDate=May 2024
|EndDate=
|Status=
|ProductLine=
|Product=Lithium
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Speech
|Description=Deep Cycle Systems pursued legal action against a small YouTuber for negative product reviews, causing the reviews to be temporarily removed, and lying about changing warranty terms.
}}

A defamation lawsuit by Australian battery manufacturer '''[[Deep Cycle Systems|Deep Cycle Systems (DCS)]]''' against AllOffroad 4×4 Adventures TV created debate across online forums and within the independent review community. The case centers on an honest, in‐depth review by the [[YouTube]] channel that highlighted concerning battery degradation, misleading warranty practices, and poor performance in government testing. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, but the reviewer privated his videos as the case was in progress. This demonstrates how corporate defamation claims can be used as a tool to suppress negative product reviews on YouTube.

==Background==
===Deep Cycle Systems===
Founded in Australia and known for its range of lithium batteries, DCS has built its reputation on claims of advanced battery technology and robust performance. The company claims that its products are engineered for longevity and are backed by warranty terms that guarantee quality. However, DCS's legal action and aggressive responses to negative reviews suggest that the company is willing to use litigation as a tool to protect its image and suppress unfavorable feedback.<ref name="car expert">{{Cite web |last=Maric |first=Paul |title=DCS batteries suing YouTuber for 'honest' review sets scary precedent |url=https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/dcs-batteries-suing-youtuber-for-honest-review-sets-scary-precedent |website=CarExpert |date=14 Aug 2024 |access-date=8 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240814023810/https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/dcs-batteries-suing-youtuber-for-honest-review-sets-scary-precedent |archive-date=14 Aug 2024}}</ref>

===AllOffroad 4×4 Adventures TV===
Stefan Fischer, the creator behind AllOffroad 4×4 Adventures TV, has long been a trusted voice among off-road enthusiasts. With a modest but dedicated following, Fischer performed several reviews of DCS batteries after receiving them for testing. His videos documented the performance and issues with capacity fade, as well as discrepancies in the product warranty. Fischer's review was straightforward and based on extensive, real-world testing—qualities that earned him support from his audience and notable figures in the independent review community.<ref>{{Cite web |author= |title=DCS sues Small YouTuber for accurate product review showing battery issues & misleading warranty |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1eauntj/dcs_sues_small_youtuber_for_accurate_product/ |website=[[Reddit]] |date=24 Jul 2024 |access-date=8 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/CLwPi |archive-date=8 Oct 2025}}</ref>

===DCS review===
Fischer's videos, which form the crux of the lawsuit, detail several key points:

*'''Battery degradation:''' Despite an initial satisfactory performance, the batteries exhibited a rate of capacity loss that many felt exceeded what DCS's warranty would promise. Independent tests showed that, in some cases, the batteries were under-performing in critical applications such as off-road and camping scenarios.

[[File:DCS warranty policy archive march 2023.png|thumb|right|Screenshot of DCS warranty policy website from March 2023, which says battery will be replaced within warranty period if it falls below 80% capacity in warranty period.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=DCS Warranty, Shipping & Return Policies |url=https://www.deepcyclesystems.com.au/shipping-return-policy/ |website=DCS |date= |access-date= |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20231107111343/https://www.deepcyclesystems.com.au/shipping-return-policy/ |archive-date=7 Nov 2023}}</ref>]]

[[File:DCS warranty policy archive november 2023.png|thumb|Screenshot of DCS warranty policy website from November 2023, which says battery will be replaced within warranty period if it falls below 70% capacity in warranty period if it is used a certain way. This text was ''not'' included in prior warranty policies. However, the page still says "Policy last updated 14th JUNE 2021.", which misleads customers into believing their warranty at the point of sale claimed 70% was considered defective even if it was 80% at the time of the customer's purchase.<ref name=":0" />]]

*'''Misleading warranty terms:''' Fischer pointed out discrepancies between the warranty claims posted on DCS' website and the apparent changes in policy. While the company falsely stated that their policy had not changed since 14 June 2021, archived versions of their website from March 2023 and November 2023 revealed otherwise.
**The March 2023 policy states: "The battery will be determined to be defective if it fails to deliver less than 80% of its rated capacity during the warranty period."<ref>{{Cite web |author= |title=DCS Warranty, Shipping & Return Policies |url=https://www.deepcyclesystems.com.au/shipping-return-policy/ |website=DCS |date= |access-date= |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20230309064156/https://www.deepcyclesystems.com.au/shipping-return-policy/ |archive-date=9 Mar 2023}}</ref>
**The November 2023 policy had changed: "The battery will be determined to be defective if it fails to deliver less than 80% of its rated capacity during the warranty period for normal installations. The battery will be determined to be defective if it fails to deliver less than 70% of its rated capacity during the warranty period when installed inside engine bays or engine compartments."<ref name=":0" />
**This change effectively weakened consumer protections while falsely maintaining that the warranty terms had remained unchanged.

[[File:Horrible dcs battery.png|thumb|DCS battery capacity vs. other brands: DCS ranks worst by large margin, reiterating Stefan's skepticism about the quality of the products DCS provides with regards to longevity and capacity.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |author=ARENA |title=Public Report 12 (Final Report) - Lithium-ion Battery Testing |url=https://arena.gov.au/assets/2018/05/lithium-ion-battery-testing-public-report-12.pdf |website=ARENA |date=Mar 2022 |access-date=8 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230428135852/https://arena.gov.au/assets/2018/05/lithium-ion-battery-testing-public-report-12.pdf |archive-date=28 Apr 2023 |format=pdf}}</ref>]]

*'''Australian government testing:''' Independent government testing conducted by Australia's Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) found that DCS' battery performed worse than every other battery tested by a large margin.<ref name=":1" /> The Phase 3 Capacity Test Results (Section 6.3, page 28) revealed that this battery performed worse than every battery in the test, validating Fischer's concerns about the battery's real-world reliability.

*'''Overall product suitability:''' Beyond the numbers, Fischer's honest account questioned whether the batteries were truly fit for the demanding conditions they were marketed for — raising concerns that if these issues went unchallenged, consumers might face unexpected failures and financial loss.

==Lawsuit==
In May of 2024, DCS filed a defamation lawsuit in the District Court of Queensland. The lawsuit alleged that Fischer's reviews were not only defamatory but also malicious, claiming that the negative publicity had cost the company significant losses. DCS sought compensatory damages, interest, and legal costs, although the precise sum remained undisclosed.<ref name="car expert" />

===Possible implications===
The legal threat was concerning to YouTube content creators and reviewers. Many feared that if a company could successfully sue a small, independent reviewer for presenting genuine, factual criticism, it would have a chilling effect on honest product reviews. Industry observers and fellow creators — including prominent right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann — criticized DCS' approach. Rossmann's own commentary on the issue drew sharp responses, with him labeling DCS's tactics as "scumbags" and emphasizing that "it's not defamation if it's true."

===Outcome===
On 11 March 2025, the District Court of Queensland dismissed DCS' defamation claim against Stefan Fischer.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |author=Byrne KC DCJ |title=Deep Cycle Systems Pty Ltd v Fischer [2025] QDC 25 |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/5/57/Deep_Cycle_Systems_Pty_Ltd_v_Fischer_-2025-_QDC_25.pdf |date=11 Mar 2025 |access-date= |format=pdf}}</ref> The court ruled that DCS is not an "excluded corporation" under Queensland law, meaning they lacked standing to sue for defamation.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fischer |first=Stefan |date=11 Mar 2025 |title=Help Fight for Truth in YouTube Reviews Fundraiser Update 7 |url=https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-fight-for-truth-in-youtube-reviews |url-status=live |access-date=10 Oct 2025 |website=GoFundMe}}</ref>

The court found that:

*DCS had more than 10 employees and was an associated entity of another corporation, making them ineligible to bring a defamation lawsuit.
*DCS' sole director, Marek Tomolowicz, was found to have made multiple misleading statements regarding company operations and finances.
*There was financial intermingling between DCS and another company, Energy Tech Electronics. The court determined that both companies operated under the same financial structure, sharing a business credit card, assets, and cross-company loans.
*Tomolowicz admitted to using fake employee names in e-mail communications, including an AI-generated employee named "Michelle" to correspond with customers.
*The court deemed Tomolowicz's testimony unreliable, citing instances where he was caught making false statements under oath, including prior claims that DCS had a factory stake in China.
*Payroll records, financial documents, and employee arrangements suggested that DCS had more than five full-time employees, with additional staff likely being compensated through research and development (R&D) expenditures.
*The court also noted loans and shared financial resources between DCS and Energy Tech, further solidifying their classification as associated entities under corporate law.

As a result of the lawsuit being dismissed, Fischer must now file separate court proceedings to recover legal costs. Both parties have been ordered to submit written submissions on the matter, with deadlines set between March and April 2025.<ref name=":2" />

===Deep Cycle Systems refuses to pay===
On 14 April 2025, Fischer posted an update on GoFundMe that he and his legal team were pursuing extended costs due to DCS choosing to oppose the former's application for indemnity cost. Despite the mounting legal costs, Fischer stated he would continue to force the matter because he believed that the company should be held accountable for its actions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fischer |first=Stefan |date=14 Apr 2025 |title=Help Fight for Truth in YouTube Reviews Fundraiser Update 8 |url=https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-fight-for-truth-in-youtube-reviews |url-status=live |access-date=10 Oct 2025 |website=GoFundMe}}</ref>

In another update posted on 22 May 2025, Fischer posted that the judge had ordered DCS to pay his legal costs. Due to the term "standard costs" being used in that order, his legal team advised that it would likely mean Fischer would only recover a portion of his actual legal expenses.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fischer |first=Stefan |date=22 May 2025 |title=Help Fight for Truth in YouTube Reviews Fundraiser Update 9 |url=https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-fight-for-truth-in-youtube-reviews |url-status=live |access-date=10 Oct 2025 |website=GoFundMe}}</ref>

As of 17 June 2025 on GoFundMe, Fischer said that DCS still had not paid the required costs as ordered by the judge and that as a result, a cost assessor was hired. He would be pursuing recovery for those extra costs as well. Fischer went on to further state that if DCS still refused to pay after the assessment, that the company would be taken to court again and "may proceed to wind up the company if necessary."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fischer |first=Stefan |date=17 Jun 2025 |title=Help Fight for Truth in YouTube Reviews Fundraiser Update 10 |url=https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-fight-for-truth-in-youtube-reviews |url-status=live |access-date=10 Oct 2025 |website=GoFundMe}}</ref>

In a [[YouTube]] comment posted 20 November 2025 on Louis Rossmann's video regarding [[Vulcan Strength]]'s lawsuit against YouTube reviewer Gluck's Gym, AllOffroad 4x4 stated that efforts to recoup costs were still ongoing.<ref>{{Cite web |author=@Alloffroadau |title=Vulcan Strength sues youtube reviewer over a bad review. Stop doing this... |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6QFgC9TLUk&lc=Ugx_aI7lzrYy0qyRC0d4AaABAg |website=[[YouTube]] |date=20 November 2025 |access-date=21 November 2025 |url-status=live |quote=Thank you for standing up for honest reviews on YouTube, your videos have helped me a lot with my court case agains DCS (we still chasing cost) }}</ref>

==Community and industry response==
The backlash against DCS was swift and widespread. Across [[Reddit]] threads, forums, and social media platforms, supporters of independent reviewers rallied behind Fischer. Many contributed to fundraising campaigns aimed at offsetting the legal costs he faced, and several influential voices argued that such lawsuits could ultimately silence free and honest feedback, replacing it with sanitized, sponsor-approved content.

Critics argued that this legal action was less about protecting the company's reputation and more about stifling consumer information. They warned that if manufacturers were allowed to target independent reviewers with expensive litigation, the entire ecosystem of user-generated product insights could be compromised — leaving consumers with fewer reliable options when making purchase decisions.

==Effect on independent reviewers==
This case serves as a reminder of the vulnerability small content creators find themselves in when reviewing products with scarce resources. With most independent reviewers operating on tight budgets and limited legal resources, the mere threat of litigation can force them into self-censorship or compel them to settle out of court — even when their findings are substantiated by facts and supported by the community.

When faced with unfavorable reviews, some companies may choose to resort to legal intimidation rather than addressing the underlying product issues. Such actions not only undermine consumer trust but also weaken the overall integrity of product reviews.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Lawsuits]]
[[Category:Deep Cycle Systems]]