Post-purchase EULA modification: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA roofie]]’ and a subset of [[Retroactively amended purchase|retroactively amended purchases]], 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{{Citation needed|reason=~~Check comment~~}} 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}} or the deletion of an account, such as with [[PayPal]]{{Citation needed}} or [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates|Nintendo]].

Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA roofie]]’ and a subset of [[Retroactively amended purchase|retroactively amended purchases]], 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{{Citation needed|reason=give example}} 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 in the case of the Roku smart TV,{{Citation needed}} or the deletion of an account, such as with [[PayPal]]{{Citation needed}} or [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates|Nintendo]]{{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 terms in a reasonable way and which does not adversely affect 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 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]].

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}}.

==Responses to, and defenses used for, post-purchase EULA modification==

Line 20:

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.

== Types ==

=== Revoking perpetual licenses ===

“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>.

==Legislative action==

~~Situations involving post-purchase EULA modification have been taken to court on a number of occasions, including...~~

~~Legislative proposals to counteract this trend include...~~

==References==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{StubNotice}}
-Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA roofie]]’ and a subset of [[Retroactively amended purchase|retroactively amended purchases]], 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{{Citation needed|reason=Check comment}}<!-- 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. 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}} or the deletion of an account, such as with [[PayPal]]{{Citation needed}} or [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates|Nintendo]].
+Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA roofie]]’ and a subset of [[Retroactively amended purchase|retroactively amended purchases]], 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{{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 in the case of the Roku smart TV,{{Citation needed}} or the deletion of an account, such as with [[PayPal]]{{Citation needed}} or [[Nintendo's May 2025 Policy Updates|Nintendo]]{{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 terms in a reasonable way and which does not adversely affect 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 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]].
+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}}.
 ==Responses to, and defenses used for, post-purchase EULA modification==
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 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.
+== Types ==
+=== Revoking perpetual licenses ===
+“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>.
 ==Legislative action==
-Situations involving post-purchase EULA modification have been taken to court on a number of occasions, including...
+{{Incomplete section}}
-Legislative proposals to counteract this trend include...
 ==References==