Editing Reverse engineering vs illegal hacking (section)

==Futurehome example==

In May 2025, Norwegian smart home company Futurehome was acquired out of bankruptcy. The new owners, FHSD Connect AS, introduced a mandatory subscription model: customers had to pay an annual fee of 1,188 NOK (approx. $117 USD) or lose access to basic functionality like the mobile app, automation, & local APIs - even though those features were previously included in the one-time purchase price.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tek.no/nyheter/nyhet/i/alMe04/rasende-kunder-opplever-smarthjem-utpressing |title=Rasende og fortvilte Futurehome-kunder: – Oppleves som utpressing |website=Tek.no |access-date=2025-07-14 |language=nb}}</ref>

When customers began exploring ways to restore lost functionality through reverse engineering, Futurehome CEO Øyvind Fries accused them of ''"illegal hacking"'' & threatened legal action.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tek.no/nyheter/nyhet/i/mPm4xl/lover-50000-kroner-for-aa-gjore-futurehome-gratis |title=Lover 50.000 kroner for å knekke programvaren til Futurehome |website=Tek.no |access-date=2025-07-14 |language=nb}}</ref>

However, no evidence was provided that users were:
*Accessing Futurehome's servers without authorization
*Distributing proprietary code
*Compromising the privacy of others

Consumer rights advocate Louis Rossmann offered a $5,000 bounty for someone to create a way to use Futurehome devices locally without a subscription. His viewers began:
*Capturing network traffic from their own devices
*Analyzing firmware dumps from hubs they physically owned
*Attempting to restore functionality that had been removed post-sale
The purpose was to restore functionality customers had already paid for. Futurehome's management tried to frame this as a bounty for criminal activity.