Post-purchase EULA modification: Difference between revisions

Line 11:

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).

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. If the user does not accept this change, they will be unable to use the product which they purchased. As is common knowledge, 99% of users in such a situation will simply accept the EULA changes in order to regain access to their product, as they have neither the inclination nor the mental bandwidth necessary to read through a lengthy contract every time such an update is issued.

<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. If the user does not accept this change, they will be unable to use the product which they purchased. As is common knowledge, 99% of users in such a situation will simply accept the EULA changes in order to regain access to their product, as they have neither the inclination nor the mental bandwidth necessary to read through a lengthy contract every time such an update is issued.</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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 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).
-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. If the user does not accept this change, they will be unable to use the product which they purchased. As is common knowledge, 99% of users in such a situation will simply accept the EULA changes in order to regain access to their product, as they have neither the inclination nor the mental bandwidth necessary to read through a lengthy contract every time such an update is issued.
+<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. If the user does not accept this change, they will be unable to use the product which they purchased. As is common knowledge, 99% of users in such a situation will simply accept the EULA changes in order to regain access to their product, as they have neither the inclination nor the mental bandwidth necessary to read through a lengthy contract every time such an update is issued.</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.