Disabling online features in retaliation: Difference between revisions
m Markup issues |
m Style and grammar nit |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==How it works== | ==How it works== | ||
Business may use this practice in a situation where the product '''has online features''' that most customers would find valuable, the customer '''cannot chose the provider''' for this online service (usually by the same manufacturer as the device) and the business has an anti-competitive reason to enforce restrictions on the product that are technologically difficult to enforce directly. | Business may use this practice in a situation where the product '''has online features''' that most customers would find valuable, the customer '''cannot chose the provider''' for this online service (usually by the same manufacturer as the device) and the business has an anti-competitive reason to enforce restrictions on the product that are technologically difficult to enforce directly. | ||
The product will use some kind of detection mechanism to determine if the customer breaks one of the manufacturers terms and '''in retaliation''' | The product will use some kind of detection mechanism to determine if the customer breaks one of the manufacturers terms and '''in retaliation''' disables the online features the customer cared about. | ||
As a result the product has decreased utility and (resale) value, harming the customer. | As a result the product has decreased utility and (resale) value, harming the customer. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
'''Manufacturer directly inflicts harm''' | '''Manufacturer directly inflicts harm''' | ||
The manufacturer has the ability to inflict immediate and direct harm by reducing the utility and value of the product whenever the manufacturer sees fit, based on terms that the manufacturer imposed. | The manufacturer has the ability to inflict immediate and direct harm by reducing the utility and value of the product whenever the manufacturer sees fit, based on terms that the manufacturer imposed. Even if the customer has any recourse available, the manufacturer can decide to keep online features disabled during the dispute. | ||
Even if the customer has any recourse available, the manufacturer can decide to keep online features disabled during the dispute. | |||
'''Chilling effect''' | '''Chilling effect''' | ||
| Line 24: | Line 23: | ||
Business may use this tactic to force the consumer to buy only first party accessories / replacement parts. Regardless of whether the third party products can be legally put on the market, the manufacturer can still threaten the customer with an online ban. This stifles competition in the product's after-market. | Business may use this tactic to force the consumer to buy only first party accessories / replacement parts. Regardless of whether the third party products can be legally put on the market, the manufacturer can still threaten the customer with an online ban. This stifles competition in the product's after-market. | ||
'''Lack of recourse''' | |||
Because the online services can't be easily replaced with an alternative provider. Customers don't have a good option to contest a decision or compel the manufacturer to provide them online services, besides taking them to court. The manufacturer may also claim there are no product defects, so warranty claims or refunds for the product may be denied. Especially when combined with [[forced arbitration]] clauses, this can make it infeasible for an individual customer to fix or recover the harm inflicted on them. | |||
'''Perverse incentive to add online features''' | '''Perverse incentive to add online features''' | ||
| Line 32: | Line 35: | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
Some examples of disabling online features in retaliation include: | Some examples of disabling online features in retaliation include: | ||
| Line 38: | Line 42: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
[[Category:Common terms]] | [[Category:Common terms]] | ||
[[Category:Theme]] | [[Category:Theme]] | ||
Latest revision as of 17:13, 4 October 2025
❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub
This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼
Disabling online features in retaliation is a practice in which businesses deny access to online functionality because the user of a product did not adhere to terms / policies unrelated to the online service. Making the product less useful and less valuable.
How it works
[edit | edit source]Business may use this practice in a situation where the product has online features that most customers would find valuable, the customer cannot chose the provider for this online service (usually by the same manufacturer as the device) and the business has an anti-competitive reason to enforce restrictions on the product that are technologically difficult to enforce directly.
The product will use some kind of detection mechanism to determine if the customer breaks one of the manufacturers terms and in retaliation disables the online features the customer cared about. As a result the product has decreased utility and (resale) value, harming the customer.
Why it is a problem
[edit | edit source]Manufacturer directly inflicts harm
The manufacturer has the ability to inflict immediate and direct harm by reducing the utility and value of the product whenever the manufacturer sees fit, based on terms that the manufacturer imposed. Even if the customer has any recourse available, the manufacturer can decide to keep online features disabled during the dispute.
Chilling effect
Customers may refrain from using their product in otherwise legal ways, due to fear of the manufacturer retaliating.
Anti-competitive
Business may use this tactic to force the consumer to buy only first party accessories / replacement parts. Regardless of whether the third party products can be legally put on the market, the manufacturer can still threaten the customer with an online ban. This stifles competition in the product's after-market.
Lack of recourse
Because the online services can't be easily replaced with an alternative provider. Customers don't have a good option to contest a decision or compel the manufacturer to provide them online services, besides taking them to court. The manufacturer may also claim there are no product defects, so warranty claims or refunds for the product may be denied. Especially when combined with forced arbitration clauses, this can make it infeasible for an individual customer to fix or recover the harm inflicted on them.
Perverse incentive to add online features
Manufacturers may design their products with an unnecessary reliance on online features to use it as an enforcement mechanism, rather than adding value to the product.
Examples
[edit | edit source]Some examples of disabling online features in retaliation include:
- Nintendo Switch 2 consoles disabling Nintendo Switch Online functionality when MIG Switch cartridges are detected.[1]
- Molekule Air Purifiers disabling Molekule Services (required for using the Molekule app) when 3rd party replacement filters are detected.[2]
References
[edit | edit source]- ↑ Scattered Brain (Jun 16, 2025). "Soo... Nintendo banned my Switch 2 (Don't try the MIG Switch!)". YouTube. Retrieved Jun 18, 2025.
- ↑ Louis, Rossmann (2025-10-04). "YouTube: Air filters have DRM now 🤦♂️". YouTube.