Bambu's Gaslighting Masterclass: Denying their own documented restrictions

🔄 A merge request has been made for this article

There has been a merge request for this page for the following reason:

The main article covers most of these points. This should be double checked, any new info added to it and then this article should be deleted. If this is a trascript it should be marked as such if retained in the wiki

Merge with:Bambu Lab Authorization Control System

---

As soon as the contents that need to, have been merged, the moderation team will delete the extraneous pages

If you believe the merge has been completed but the page is still not deleted pleas contact a moderator either on discord or via their talk pages.

Short summary of the incident. Usually 2-3 sentences that summarize the contents or the article.

Background

Information about the product/service history to provide the necessary context surrounding the incident

Bambu Lab’s firmware update and its implications

• Bambu Lab introduced a firmware update that includes new authorization controls for certain critical functions (motion system, temperature, fans, calibration, etc.).
• The update originally stated in the terms of service that failing to install updates could result in print jobs being blocked.
• Many users, including Rossmann, interpreted this as a restriction on using the printer without updating.

Bambu Lab’s response and website edits

• After backlash, Bambu Lab updated their blog post and released a statement claiming that reports about printers being blocked were "entirely false" and "baseless allegations."
• However, Rossmann retrieved archived versions of the original page, showing that Bambu Lab did not initially clarify whether printers could still function without updates.
• This change in messaging led to confusion and frustration because it made users who initially raised concerns feel like they were being gaslit.

The Archive Issue & Lack of Transparency

• Rossmann highlights that Bambu Lab has actively prevented their website from being archived on sites like Archive.org, making it difficult to track changes.
• He compares this behavior to other companies that have modified policies retroactively, such as an Australian battery company (Deep Cycle Systems) that quietly changed warranty conditions and pretended they were always the same.
• He expresses distrust for companies that remove historical records of their policies and emphasizes that this erodes consumer trust.

Comparisons to Other Consumer Policy Issues

Rossmann draws parallels to other companies that have similarly changed terms and gaslit users:

• RepairShopr: Sent an email stating they were updating their Terms of Service without user consent, allowing them to use customer data for AI training.
• When Rossmann confronted them, they claimed there was “confusion,” yet the AI-related clause remained in the Terms of Service.
• Sony & Digital Purchases: Sony once advertised movies as “purchases” but later removed access, citing fine print in their terms.
• He warns that companies use legal language to protect themselves but later use that same fine print against customers.

The Broader Issue of Consumer Rights

• Rossmann criticizes people who dismiss these concerns by saying, "all companies do this" or "why does it matter?"
• He argues that holding companies accountable is important because failing to do so leads to a slow erosion of consumer rights.
• He encourages viewers to stay informed, push back against deceptive practices, and not accept corporate gaslighting.
• When consumers speak out as a group, companies are forced to respond, even if they try to spin the narrative.

Consumer response

Summary and key issues of prevailing sentiment from the consumers and commentators that can be documented via articles, emails to support, reviews and forum posts.