Post-purchase EULA modification: Difference between revisions
m Proofreading |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Post-purchase [[ | Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA Roofie]]’, 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 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}}. | ||
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 5: | ||
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 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 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. | ||
== Responses to, and defences used for, | ==Responses to, and defences 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 19: | Line 19: | ||
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. | ||
== | ==Legislative action== | ||
Situations involving post-purchase EULA modification have been taken to court on a number of occasions, including... | Situations involving post-purchase EULA modification have been taken to court on a number of occasions, including... | ||