Post-purchase EULA modification: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Tweaks |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA | {{StubNotice}} | ||
Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA roofie]]’ and a subset of [[Retroactively amended purchase|retroactively amended purchases]], is an increasingly common practice whereby the terms that govern a customer’s use of a product are modified after the customer’s purchase of the product. Such changes are frequently impossible for a customer to reject without either losing access to the product they paid for{{Citation needed|reason=Check comment}}<!-- Should point to something that covered access to a product being impossible without agreeing to the new terms. Potential for this to be pointed out from Take 2's recent EULA changes for all of its software. --> or losing substantial functionality. In some cases, no ‘reject’ option is given, other than to power off the product and never use it again, such as in the case of the Roku smart TV,{{Citation needed}} or the deletion of an account, such as with [[PayPal]]{{Citation needed}} or [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates|Nintendo]]. | |||
Such a modification can work in the consumer’s favor (such as in the case of [[Valve]] [[Valve Removes Arbitration Requirement From Steam Subscriber Agreement|changing the terms]] of the [[Steam]] subscriber agreement to remove [[forced arbitration]]), or simply serve to clarify or correct specific terms in a way which both is reasonable and does not adversely affect the consumer. | Such a modification can work in the consumer’s favor (such as in the case of [[Valve]] [[Valve Removes Arbitration Requirement From Steam Subscriber Agreement|changing the terms]] of the [[Steam]] subscriber agreement to remove [[forced arbitration]]), or simply serve to clarify or correct specific terms in a way which both is reasonable and does not adversely affect the consumer. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
A problem exists, however, when such a change is made in order to reduce the rights, or increase the obligations, of the consumer. | A problem exists, however, when such a change is made in order to reduce the rights, or increase the obligations, of the consumer. | ||
====The ‘EULA | ====The ‘EULA roofie’==== | ||
The use of the colloquial term ‘[[EULA | The use of the colloquial term ‘[[EULA roofie]]’ stems from comparisons between the practice of post-purchase EULA modification, and the practice of spiking a drink – where consent is sought and given for the consumption of the drink, but not for the consumption of whatever it has been spiked with. The most common association with this term is when a company [[Retroactively amended purchase|retroactively amends their terms]] to introduce [[forced arbitration]], such as with [[Nintendo]] in [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates|advance of the release]] of the [[Nintendo Switch|Nintendo Switch 2]]. | ||
==Responses to, and | ==Responses to, and defenses used for, post-purchase EULA modification== | ||
Many arguments intended to defend post-purchase EULA modification cite the legitimate reasons for such an action, as described above. They argue that it would not be practical to maintain a long-running service without being able to occasionally change or clarify their terms. Others will attempt to defend their actions by deflecting from the issue, such as in [this] case, where Repairshopr defended their decision to alter their EULA to allow them to collect user interaction logs for AI training by simply pretending that they would never do such a thing, and acting as if there were no substantial changes to their EULA which would allow them to collect and process data in that way (of course, this was done without explicitly stating that no such change had occurred). | Many arguments intended to defend post-purchase EULA modification cite the legitimate reasons for such an action, as described above. They argue that it would not be practical to maintain a long-running service without being able to occasionally change or clarify their terms. Others will attempt to defend their actions by deflecting from the issue, such as in [this] case, where Repairshopr defended their decision to alter their EULA to allow them to collect user interaction logs for AI training by simply pretending that they would never do such a thing, and acting as if there were no substantial changes to their EULA which would allow them to collect and process data in that way (of course, this was done without explicitly stating that no such change had occurred). | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
In extreme cases, companies may take a ''lack'' of action as consent, as was the case in this incident [link to that sock company thing], where non-response to an email was considered by the company to be appropriate consent for a change to the EULA. | In extreme cases, companies may take a ''lack'' of action as consent, as was the case in this incident [link to that sock company thing], where non-response to an email was considered by the company to be appropriate consent for a change to the EULA. | ||
Particularly insidious examples of this practice include [[Adobe]]’s EULA changes, which [[Adobe's AI | Particularly insidious examples of this practice include [[Adobe]]’s EULA changes, which [[Adobe's AI policy|required users to accept]] the use of their art and media for the training of AI, or face the loss of access to Adobe products. It was felt by a number of prominent creative professionals that this amounted to a substantial changing of the ‘deal’ they were offered at the time of purchase, effectively amounting to the theft of their creative efforts. Many creative professionals are deeply entrenched in the Adobe ecosystem, and would suffer substantial financial harm if they were to stop using Adobe products, as the time taken to learn alternative tools would directly correlate to lost work and payment. Combined with Adobe’s practice of charging a premium for the privilege of early subscription cancellation, users who did not want their art used for AI training were unethically forced into choosing between their livelihood and their integrity. | ||
Because of the nature of the agreements, legal professionals[who?] have argued that many cases of such contract changes are unenforceable, when the users have not been properly informed of contractual changes, and those changes are beyond what would be expected in a typical contract of this type{{Citation needed}}. The reality for the average user, however, is that they cannot realistically challenge such a change, because of the costs involved with litigation, and instead must accept the poisoned choice they are offered: suck it up and deal with the new terms, or lose access to a product they paid for. | Because of the nature of the agreements, legal professionals[who?] have argued that many cases of such contract changes are unenforceable, when the users have not been properly informed of contractual changes, and those changes are beyond what would be expected in a typical contract of this type{{Citation needed}}. The reality for the average user, however, is that they cannot realistically challenge such a change, because of the costs involved with litigation, and instead must accept the poisoned choice they are offered: suck it up and deal with the new terms, or lose access to a product they paid for. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 25: | ||
Legislative proposals to counteract this trend include... | Legislative proposals to counteract this trend include... | ||
== References == | |||
<references /> | |||
== See Also == | |||
* [[Retroactively amended purchase]] | |||
[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]] | [[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]] | ||
[[Category:Common terms]] | [[Category:Common terms]] | ||
[[Category:Rights Stripping]] | [[Category:Rights Stripping]] | ||