Disabling online features in retaliation: Difference between revisions
m Markup issues |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{StubNotice}} | {{StubNotice}} | ||
'''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 | '''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 or policies unrelated to the online service, making the product less useful and less valuable. | ||
==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. | ||
==Why it is a problem== | ==Why it is a problem== | ||
*'''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 and/or 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. Particularly 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. | |||
[[File:Switch 2 bricked.png|thumb|A screenshot from a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgYTA18_vo&t=656s video by Scattered Brain], displaying his Switch 2 console being {{Wplink|Brick (electronics)|bricked}}.]] | |||
'''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. | |||
[[File: | |||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
Some examples of disabling online features in retaliation include: | Some examples of disabling online features in retaliation include: | ||
*[[Nintendo Switch 2]] consoles disabling [[Nintendo Switch Online]] functionality when MIG Switch cartridges are detected.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Scattered Brain |date=Jun | *[[Nintendo Switch 2]] consoles disabling [[Nintendo Switch Online]] functionality when MIG Switch cartridges are detected.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Scattered Brain |date=16 Jun 2025 |title=Soo... Nintendo banned my Switch 2 (Don't try the MIG Switch!) |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgYTA18_vo&t=656s |access-date=18 Jun 2025 |website=[[YouTube]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://preservetube.com/watch?v=ExgYTA18_vo |archive-date=16 Feb 2026}}</ref> | ||
*[[Molekule Air Purifier|Molekule Air Purifiers]] disabling Molekule Services (required for using the Molekule app) when | *[[Molekule Air Purifier|Molekule Air Purifiers]] disabling Molekule Services (required for using the Molekule app) when third-party replacement filters are detected.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=4 Oct 2025 |title=Air filters have DRM now 🤦♂️ |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCu_n2Nddu0 |website=[[YouTube]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://preservetube.com/watch?v=LCu_n2Nddu0 |archive-date=16 Feb 2026}}</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{ | {{Reflist}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Anti-consumer practices]] | ||