Consumer Rights Wiki

User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson/Article making space: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
VisualWikitext
+post purchase eula modification
+citation
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Article number 1 - Retroactively amended purchase==
==Article number 1 - Retroactively amended purchase==
A retroactively amended purchase is a purchase wherein the terms, functionality, or usability of a product or service are altered after the purchase. These changes may result from policy updates, the deprecation of supporting infrastructure, or other modifications that affect the consumer’s ability to fully use or benefit from their purchase.


===Overview===
===Overview===
Line 17: Line 15:


===Revoking perpetual license===
===Revoking perpetual license===
Some companies change the language of their End-user license agreements to revoke the rights of the consumer for products they've paid for, such as revoking a perpetual license and, oftentimes, replacing it with a subscription model{{Citation needed|reason=give example}}.
Some companies change the language of their End-user license agreements to revoke the rights of the consumer for products they've paid for, such as revoking a perpetual license and, oftentimes, replacing it with a subscription model.


“License euthanasia” is the practice of revoking perpetual licenses under the pretext that the company is looking out for the user’s best interest by forcing them to update to a later version. This term was coined by consumer-rights advocate Louis Rossmann, who observed that Final Draft’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanced age” “made it sound like they’re doing the kind thing” by putting old software out of its misery<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=26 Jan 2025 |title=Final Draft revokes perpetual software license for your own security; how nice of them!! |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV4VDvseIE&t=439s |website=YouTube}}</ref>.
“License euthanasia” is the practice of revoking perpetual licenses under the pretext that the company is looking out for the user’s best interest by forcing them to update to a later version. This term was coined by consumer-rights advocate Louis Rossmann, who observed that Final Draft’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanced age” “made it sound like they’re doing the kind thing” by putting old software out of its misery<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=26 Jan 2025 |title=Final Draft revokes perpetual software license for your own security; how nice of them!! |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV4VDvseIE&t=439s |website=YouTube}}</ref>.
Line 79: Line 77:


==Article number 2 - Post-purchase EULA modification==
==Article number 2 - Post-purchase EULA modification==
Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA roofie]]’ is when the terms that govern a customer’s use of a product or service are modified after the initial purchase. Rejecting these contractual changes are often impossible without the consumer either losing access to the product or service they paid for{{Citation needed|reason=give example}}<!-- 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{{Citation needed|reason=give example}}. In some cases, no ‘reject’ option is given, other than to power off the product and never use it again (such as the case of the Roku smart TV,{{Citation needed}}) or the deletion of an account (such as with [[PayPal]]{{Citation needed}} and [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates|Nintendo]]{{Citation needed}}).
Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA roofie]]’ is when the terms that govern a customer’s use of a product or service are modified after the initial purchase.
 
EULA modifications may sometimes work in the consumer’s favor (such as [[Valve removes arbitration requirement from Steam Subscriber Agreement|Valve removing forced arbitration]] [[Steam]]'s terms of service) or simply serve to clarify or correct terms in a reasonable way and which does not adversely affect the consumer.
 
==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{{Citation needed}}. 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){{Citation needed}}.
 
<p>A common argument against the importance of this issue is that any user still needs to accept the changes{{Citation needed}} in order to be bound by the new EULA, and that the previous EULA may have included language stating that the company may alter the terms of the EULA after purchase. This argument, however, fails to account for the situation the user will typically find themselves in. In most cases, users are given a simple ‘tickbox’, without proper summarisation of the changes contained in the EULA update{{Citation needed}}. If the user does not accept this change, they will be unable to use the product which they purchased. Many users may simply accept the EULA changes in order to regain access to their product.</p>
 
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{{Citation needed}}.


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{{Citation needed}}. 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, particularly for controversial issues such as AI training. Many creative professionals are deeply entrenched in the Adobe ecosystem, and would suffer substantial financial harm if they were to suddenly 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{{Citation needed}}, users who did not want their art used for AI training were unethically forced into choosing between their livelihood and their integrity.
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{{Citation needed}}. 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, particularly for controversial issues such as AI training. Many creative professionals are deeply entrenched in the Adobe ecosystem, and would suffer substantial financial harm if they were to suddenly 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{{Citation needed}}, users who did not want their art used for AI training were unethically forced into choosing between their livelihood and their integrity.
Line 97: Line 86:


===Revoking perpetual license===
===Revoking perpetual license===
Some companies change the language of their End-user license agreements to revoke the rights of the consumer for products they've paid for, such as revoking a perpetual license and, oftentimes, replacing it with a subscription model{{Citation needed|reason=give example}}.
Some companies change the language of their End-user license agreements to revoke the rights of the consumer for products they've paid for, such as revoking a perpetual license and, oftentimes, replacing it with a subscription model<ref>{{Cite web |title=EULA changes? |url=https://steamcommunity.com/app/632360/discussions/0/599648400266283441/ |access-date=2025-10-19 |website=Steam}}</ref>.


“License euthanasia” is the practice of revoking perpetual licenses under the pretext that the company is looking out for the user’s best interest by forcing them to update to a later version. This term was coined by consumer-rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]], who observed that Final Draft’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanced age” “made it sound like they’re doing the kind thing” by putting old software out of its misery<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=26 Jan 2025 |title=Final Draft revokes perpetual software license for your own security; how nice of them!! |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV4VDvseIE&t=439s |website=YouTube}}</ref>.
“License euthanasia” is the practice of revoking perpetual licenses under the pretext that the company is looking out for the user’s best interest by forcing them to update to a later version. This term was coined by consumer-rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]], who observed that Final Draft’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanced age” “made it sound like they’re doing the kind thing” by putting old software out of its misery<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=26 Jan 2025 |title=Final Draft revokes perpetual software license for your own security; how nice of them!! |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV4VDvseIE&t=439s |website=YouTube}}</ref>.
Line 107: Line 96:
====The ‘EULA roofie’====
====The ‘EULA roofie’====
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 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]]{{Citation needed}}.
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 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]]{{Citation needed}}.
===Retroactive policy enforcement===
''Main article: [[Retroactive policy enforcement]]''
Retroactive policy enforcement occurs when companies or platforms introduce new rules, policies, or enforcement mechanisms and apply them to agreements, content, or actions that predate the policy change. This practice has significant implications for consumers, ranging from loss of access to purchased goods or services, to privacy violations, and even irreversible consequences.


==Legislative action==
==Legislative action==
Line 126: Line 110:
[[:Category:Common terms]]
[[:Category:Common terms]]
[[:Category:Rights Stripping]]
[[:Category:Rights Stripping]]
==Merged version (me merging the two articles above I’ve edited)==
Post-purchase EULA modification is where the terms, functionality, or usability of a product or service are altered after the purchase. These changes may result from policy updates, the deprecation of supporting infrastructure, or other modifications that affect the consumer’s ability to fully use or benefit from their purchase.
Rejecting these contractual changes are often impossible without the consumer either losing access to the product or service they paid for{{Citation needed|reason=give example}}<!-- 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{{Citation needed|reason=give example}}. In some cases, no ‘reject’ option is given, other than to power off the product and never use it again (such as the case of the Roku smart TV,{{Citation needed}}) or the deletion of an account (such as with [[PayPal]]{{Citation needed}} and [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates|Nintendo]]{{Citation needed}}).
EULA modifications may sometimes work in the consumer’s favor (such as [[Valve removes arbitration requirement from Steam Subscriber Agreement|Valve removing forced arbitration]] [[Steam]]'s terms of service) or simply serve to clarify or correct terms in a reasonable way and which does not adversely affect the consumer.
==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{{Citation needed}}. 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){{Citation needed}}.
A common argument against the importance of this issue is that any user still needs to accept the changes{{Citation needed}} in order to be bound by the new EULA, and that the previous EULA may have included language stating that the company may alter the terms of the EULA after purchase. This argument, however, fails to account for the situation the user will typically find themselves in. In most cases, users are given a simple ‘tickbox’, without proper summarisation of the changes contained in the EULA update{{Citation needed}}. If the user does not accept this change, they will be unable to use the product which they purchased. Many users may simply accept the EULA changes in order to regain access to their product.
In extreme cases, companies may take a ''lack'' of action as consent, where non-response to an email was considered by the company to be appropriate consent for a change to the EULA{{Citation needed}}.
===Retroactive policy enforcement===
{{Main|Retroactive policy enforcement}}
Retroactive policy enforcement occurs when companies or platforms introduce new rules, policies, or enforcement mechanisms and apply them to agreements, content, or actions that predate the policy change. This practice has significant implications for consumers, ranging from loss of access to purchased goods or services, to privacy violations, and even irreversible consequences.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/w/User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson/Article_making_space"