You’ve just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription | Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn’t making quite enough money…::Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn't making quite enough money…
You’ve just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription | Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn’t making quite enough money…::Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn't making quite enough money…
Why would it not be legal?
One could argue that if you buy a device that work "as is" and then with a later update it start to require a subscription to work, this change could not be that legal.
To make an example: you buy a full optional car. 1 year later, an update make one of your option (let's say, the cruise control) a subscription service. That could be argued should be illegal.
The problem is when the subscription model is introduced to the alredy sold devices, not on the new ones, like in this case.
I'm not in favor of this bullshit. I just want to know why OP thinks it's probably illegal. This is far from the first time this BS has happened.
Probably something along the line of breach of contract. You buy something with an implicit understandement that it work as inteded and advertised and that it should continue this way unless it broke (or it assolve its functions if it is the case).
Sadly, most T&C or EULA say they just have to notify you of changes in advance.
Here the question become complex.
While it is true what you say, it is also true that they must give you an option to not accept the changes.
And if you do not accept the changes, then they cannot apply them.
Now, if we are talking about a service, then the normal result is that I, as consumer, have the option to terminate the contract without any additional fees even if expected. In this cases people normally accept the changes since most of the time is more a mess to change provider than the gain. It is not the optimal way in my opinion, but at least it have a logic: the new contract is this, you have 30 days to accept or refuse it and if you refuse it we have no contract. In my opinion the correct way should be "ok, no new contract, keep the old one with its goods and bad" but at least I have a choice if the new condition are really bad (for me of course)
On the other hand, when we talk about hardware it is debatable what you can do on a device that is my property and especially if I bought it with a given amount of working features.
And, BTW, here we have the concept of vexatious clauses, which are void by default even if I accept an EULA that has them.