Consumer Rights Wiki

User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson/Article making space: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Looks good so far!
No edit summary
Line 96: 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 127: Line 122:
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}}.
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>
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}}


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}}.
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"