Disabling online features in retaliation

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

---

This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼

Issues may include:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
• The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content

How you can help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

Disabling online features in retaliation is a practice in which businesses deny access to online functionality because the user of a product did not adhere to terms / policies unrelated to the online service. Making the product less useful and less valuable.

How it works

Business may use this practice in a situation where the product has online features that most customers would find valuable, the customer cannot chose the provider for this online service (usually by the same manufacturer as the device) and the business has an anti-competitive reason to enforce restrictions on the product that are technologically difficult to enforce directly.

The product will use some kind of detection mechanism to determine if the customer breaks one of the manufacturers terms and in retaliation disable the online features the customer cared about.

As a result the product has decreased utility and (resale) value, harming the customer.

Why it is a problem

Manufacturer directly inflicts harm The manufacturer has the ability to inflict immediate and direct harm by reducing the utility and value of the product whenever the manufacturer sees fit, based on terms that the manufacturer imposed. Even if the customer has any recourse available, the manufacturer can decide to keep online features disabled during the dispute.

Chilling effect Customers may refrain from using their product in otherwise legal ways, due to fear of the manufacturer retaliating.

Anti-competitive Business may use this tactic to force the consumer to only buy only first party accessories / replacement parts. Regardless of whether the third party products can be legally put on the market, the manufacturer can still threaten the customer with an online ban. This stifles competition in the product's after-market.

Perverse incentive to add online features Manufacturers may design their products with an unnecessary reliance on online features to use it as an enforcement mechanism, rather than adding value to the product.

A screenshot from a video by Scattered Brain, displaying his Switch 2 console being bricked

Examples

Some examples of disabling online features in retaliation include:

• Nintendo Switch 2 consoles disabling Nintendo Switch Online functionality when MIG Switch cartridges are detected.
• Molekule Air Purifiers disabling Molekule Services (required for using the Molekule app) when 3rd party replacement filters are detected.