Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:3D printers

2026-02-25T06:24:19Z

Big Mac: Issue dealt with and closed.

== Should "3D Printers" be moved to "3D printers" as this is not a company? ==

Digging around the "Uncategoriesed Categories" a category called "3D printers" came up and it seems like we have two rival names for the category this article links to.

Checking other things, it seems that non-branded things get lower case second (and onward) words in the titles, so I'm going to be bold and recategorise this to "Category:3D printers" and zap the content in "Category:3D Printers" (which I believe deletes the category). But I'm not sure on the convention for generic technology article titles yet.

If this page does need to be moved, please move the page. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 06:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:This has been resolved by another user. Thanks for the assist[[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 06:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

3D printers

2026-02-25T06:16:58Z

Big Mac: Changing category to "Category:3D printers" (as that is where the incidents all are).

{{Stub}}
{{ProductCargo
|InProduction=Yes
}}
3D Printers consumer tools for additive manufacturing, creating three‑dimensional objects by depositing material layer‑by‑layer according to a digital model generated by a slicer program. Unlike subtractive methods (milling, turning), which remove material from a solid block, 3D printing builds up the part exactly where it’s needed, reducing waste and enabling geometries that would be impossible with traditional tooling.

==Consumer-impact summary==
*'''User Freedom:''' 3D printing has contributed positively to consumer rights by expanding consumer autonomy and participation in the production process.
**'''Open access to replacement parts'''
**3D printing technology enables individuals to manufacture replacement parts, supporting the right to repair and potentially extending product lifespans. By reducing reliance on centralized manufacturers and supply chains, 3D printing can lower costs and increase access to goods.
**'''Customized Solutions'''
**3D printing offers it's user the ability to model and print their own 3D models befitting their specific situation, often times reducing waste and over-purchasing to find a perfect product.
**'''Reducing entry barrier for manufacturing'''
**3D printing facilitates market entry for small businesses and independent designers, thereby increasing product diversity and consumer choice. In addition, localized and on-demand production may reduce overproduction and transportation needs, aligning with broader sustainability objectives. Overall, 3D printing has introduced new opportunities for consumer empowerment within modern

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents related to this product. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+
!Controversy
!Year
!Background info
!Aftermath
!Related article
|-
|Bambu Lab Authorization Control System Implementation
|2025
|''Bambu Lab'' introduced a firmware “authorization control” update, limiting compatibility and access to 3rd party software without vendor software.
|Set a precedent to close ecosystems and restrict interoperability with independent tools.
|[https://blog.bambulab.com/firmware-update-introducing-new-authorization-control-system-2/ Bambu Lab Blog Announcement]
|-
|Games Workshop DMCA Enforcement Against 3D File Creators
|2010s–present
|Games Workshop issued DMCA takedown notices and pursued legal enforcement against individuals distributing 3D-printable files resembling its copyrighted miniatures.
|Reduced consumer ability to share, download, and print fan-created models; increased legal risk for hobbyist consumers.
|
|-
|Thingiverse Removal of Weapon-Related Files
|2025
|''Thingiverse'' began automatically blocking CAD files for 3D-printed weapons under legal pressure from authorities, integrating detection systems to remove such content.
|Platform censorship limited what could be shared and downloaded, setting a negative precedent.
|
|}

==See also==

*[[3D Printing Restrictions and Bans]] - an article specifically talking about printers and digital rights management

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:3D printers]]

Talk:3D printers

2026-02-25T06:15:56Z

Big Mac: /* Should "3D Printers" be moved to "3D printers" as this is not a company? */ new section

Category:3D printers

2026-02-25T06:10:32Z

Big Mac: Adding Category:Printers

[[Category:Printers]]

Category:McDonald's

2026-02-25T05:54:59Z

Big Mac: Creating category based on Category:Domino's

[[Category:Food companies]]

McDonald's 2017 India Leak

2026-02-25T05:52:22Z

Big Mac: Adding Category:McDonald's

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=McDonald's, McDonald's
|StartDate=2017-02-17
|EndDate=2017-03-20
|Status=Resolved
|Product=McDelivery
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Privacy, Security
|Description=:)
}}A cyber security firm named Fallible, announced to the media of a McDelivery leak that leaked over 2.2 million customers private information after numerous attempts to urge [[McDonald's]] to patch the issue over the span of 4 weeks. <ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Goud |first=Naveen |date=2017-03-20 |title=Cyber Attack on McDonald’s app leaks info of 2.2 million users |url=https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/cyber-attack-on-mcdonalds-app-leaks-info-of-2-2-million-users/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-13 |website=Cybersecurity Insiders |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250616142010/https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/cyber-attack-on-mcdonalds-app-leaks-info-of-2-2-million-users/ |archive-date=16 Jun 2025}}</ref> The company issue an statement and a patch, however it was not implemented correctly and would be fixed at a later date.

==The Hack==
On February 7, 2017, Fallible first notified McDonald's of a security vulnerability with McDelivery service, receiving acknowledgement from the McDelivery IT Manager on February 13, however no further response were made from McDonald's, resulting in Fallible announcing the leak to the public on March 18. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-03-17 |title=McDonalds India is leaking 2.2 million users data |url=https://hackernoon.com/mcdonalds-india-is-leaking-2-2-million-users-data-d5758b2eb3f8 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-05 |website=Hackernoon |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250821162041/https://hackernoon.com/mcdonalds-india-is-leaking-2-2-million-users-data-d5758b2eb3f8 |archive-date=21 Aug 2025}}</ref> It was reported that 2.2 million customers were affected, <ref name=":0" /> <ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Arghire |first=Ionut |date=2017-03-20 |title=McDonald’s App Leaks Details of 2.2 Million Customers |url=https://www.securityweek.com/mcdonalds-app-leaks-details-22-million-customers/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-13 |website=Security Week |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251206202836/https://www.securityweek.com/mcdonalds-app-leaks-details-22-million-customers/ |archive-date=6 Dec 2025}}</ref> leaking customers info that included phone numbers, addresses, names, email IDs and home address.<ref name=":1" />
[[File:2017 McDonalds India Leak Screenshot.png|alt=2017 McDonald's India Personal leaked Info Showcase|thumb|Personal leaked Info Showcase]]
[[File:McDonald's India Official Statement on Facebook.png|alt=McDonald's India Official Statement on Facebook|thumb|Official Statement on Facebook]]
After public disclosure, Fallible shared their frustration with the company, responding with; <blockquote>''"We have always respected a company’s request if they wanted more time to fix any issue but sadly they stopped responding after 4 weeks which led to us warning users that their data is out in the open. In fact, the ‘fix’ applied right now is incomplete and the vulnerability exists even now and we have intimated the same to the concerned company.”'' <ref name=":1" /></blockquote>

== Aftermath ==
The same day as the announcement, McDonald's responded on Facebook saying it doesn't store any financial data, citing their website and app are secure and safe to use through updates in their security measures, while also urging users to update the McDelivery app. The update didn't fully implement the patch correctly, resulting in millions of customers still at risks of the attack, however the company eventually implemented a full on patch, though the exact date is unknown.

There is no official statement or response indicating that the original perpetrators were caught.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:McDonald's]]

Category:Canary

2026-02-25T05:44:49Z

Big Mac: Category created based on similar Flock Safety category.

[[Category:Video surveillance companies]]
[[Category:Security companies]]

Canary

2026-02-25T05:42:31Z

Big Mac: Adding Category:{{PAGENAME}} based on best guess from looking at Flock Safety page

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a consumer security camera line (including Pro, View, and Flex cameras) produced by '''Canary''', a dedicated home security technology company founded in 2012. Based in New York, the company focuses on smart home surveillance and operates as a subsidiary of Smartfrog & Canary.

== Consumer impact summary ==
The Canary line of home security devices were originally marketed as including a suite of free cloud-based services as part of the purchase price. Buyers report gradual entshitification has ensued, to the point that the original devices have lost most of their value, and the company discounts and sometimes gives away some of its products (previously ~$400) in order to gain customers for the monthly paid services that are now needed in order to restore functionality Canary products were initially sold with. This has lead to some consumers being skeptical towards the brand and doubtful they will spend money with them again.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Canary slashes features from free tier — cameras are no longer worth it |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/homedefense/comments/74e4jv/canary_slashes_features_from_free_tier_cameras/#:~:text=Id%20ask%20them%2C%20but%20they,to%20my%20support%20ticket%20:%2D/&text=Alternatively%2C%20invest%20in%20a%20hardware,you%20do%20for%20car%20insurance.&text=This%20is%20pretty%20much%20the,people%20who%20can%20run%20POE. |quote=I bought a couple Canary cameras a few months ago because they offered free 24h video clip history. They recently sent an email saying that their servers are overwhelmed, so they’ve changed the free tier to 1) only record 10 second clips 2) not record at night and 3) you won’t be able to download the recordings without paying for a monthly subscription.<br/>This sudden reduction in features seems to be a ruse to buy the monthly subscription, and I regret giving these clowns almost $400 for the cameras just to have them force an upsell on me. |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20230612130631/https://old.reddit.com/r/homedefense/comments/74e4jv/canary_slashes_features_from_free_tier_cameras/ |archive-date=12 Jun 2023}}</ref>

All video is sent to the cloud, with all the privacy implications of that.

== Incidents ==
This is a list of all consumer protection incidents related to this product line.

{{ProductLineCargo|ArticleType=Product|Category=Security Cameras|Company=Canary|Description=|InProduction=Yes|Logo= |ReleaseYear= |Website=https://canary.is}} 

== Products ==

* Pro, View, and Flex cameras
* Premium service (currently $20/mo)

== See also ==

* [[Enshittification]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Microsoft Copilot

2026-02-25T05:36:22Z

Big Mac: Adding Category:Microsoft Copilot

{{ProductCargo|Company=Microsoft|Description=Generative AI chatbot|InProduction=Yes|Logo=Microsoft Copilot Icon.png|ProductLine=Microsoft 365|ReleaseYear=2023|Website=https://copilot.microsoft.com/}}

Microsoft Copilot is a generative AI assistant developed by Microsoft AI. Built on OpenAI's GPT-4 and GPT-5 series of large language models and fine-tuned with Microsoft's proprietary Prometheus model, Copilot launched in 2023 as Microsoft's primary replacement for the discontinued Cortana virtual assistant. The service originally debuted in February 2023 under the name Bing Chat before Microsoft unified the Copilot branding across its product ecosystem later that year.

Copilot is available on Windows 10 and 11, macOS, iOS, Android, and through web browsers. On Windows, it can be launched from the taskbar, via the dedicated Copilot key introduced on new keyboards in January 2024, or through the voice command "Hey, Copilot." Additional features include Copilot Voice for real-time voice conversations powered by GPT-4o, and Copilot Vision, which can analyze on-screen content and provide guidance in real time.

== Lawsuits ==
{{DEFAULTSORT:Microsoft Copilot}}

[[Category:Microsoft Copilot]]

Category:Microsoft Copilot

2026-02-25T05:36:07Z

Big Mac: Format fix

[[Category:Microsoft]]
[[Category:Artificial intelligence]]

Category:Microsoft Copilot

2026-02-25T05:35:48Z

Big Mac: Category created

[[Category:Microsoft]]
[[[[Category:Artificial intelligence]]

Fake memory still being sold on eBay and Amazon

2026-02-25T05:20:15Z

Big Mac: Adding Category:Amazon and Category:eBay

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Amazon, Ebay
|StartDate=
|EndDate=
|Status=
|ProductLine=
|Product=
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=False Advertising
|Description=
}}
Counterfeit flash memory, such as USB flash drives, SD Cards and Solid State Drives, with falsified storage capacities are a prevalent problem on popular online marketplaces such as eBay, Amazon, and AliExpress. These fake drives are often advertised with large storage capacities at attractive prices but in reality contain significantly less memory. This deceptive practice can lead to data loss, frustration, and financial loss for unsuspecting buyers.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 Mar 2022 |title=The 2TB Flash Drive Scam: Why “High-Capacity” Flash Drives Are Fakes |url=https://datarecovery.com/2022/03/the-2tb-flash-drive-scam-why-high-capacity-flash-drives-are-fakes/ |url-status=live |website=datarecovery.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250728232131/https://datarecovery.com/2022/03/the-2tb-flash-drive-scam-why-high-capacity-flash-drives-are-fakes/ |archive-date=28 Jul 2025}}</ref>

==How counterfeit flash memory works==
Fake USB drives are typically modified devices that report a higher storage capacity to the computer than they physically have. For example, a drive advertised as 128 GB might actually contain only 8 GB of real storage. When users try to store data beyond the actual capacity, data corruption, overwriting, or loss occurs.

This is achieved by manipulating the drive’s firmware to falsely report the larger size to the operating system. Because the drive appears legitimate during basic use, many users do not realize they have purchased a counterfeit until data begins to fail. Additionally, these counterfeit drives will often use defective NAND memory, which can cause poor performance, unreliability, and premature failures.

==Common signs of counterfeit flash memory==

*'''Unusually low price''' compared to market value
*'''Seller feedback and reviews''' indicating issues or counterfeits (Amazon and AliExpress in particular are well known for fake reviews and removing negative feedback which makes counterfeit drives look more convincing)
*'''Inconsistent physical appearance''', packaging, or branding, often, but not always, pretending to be a well-known brand such as Sony, Xiaomi, and Sandisk.
*'''Performance issues''' such as slow read/write speeds or frequent errors
*'''Storage capacity tests''' revealing less capacity than advertised

==Impact on consumers==
Consumers purchasing counterfeit drives risk losing important personal or professional data. These drives may fail without warning, and data recovery is often impossible, especially due to the fact that most of the data will have likely been overwritten, possibly several times. Additionally, counterfeit drives undermine trust in online marketplaces and can damage the reputations of legitimate sellers.

==How to detect fake USB drives==

*Use software tools such as '''H2testw'''<ref>{{Cite web |title=H2testw Tool Official Website |url=https://h2testw.org/ |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260214113834/https://h2testw.org/ |archive-date=14 Feb 2026}}</ref> (Windows), '''F3 (Fight Flash Fraud)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Fight Flash Fraud (F3) GitHub Repository |url=https://github.com/AltraMayor/f3 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260128110655/https://github.com/AltraMayor/f3 |archive-date=28 Jan 2026}}</ref>''' (Linux/Mac), or '''ChipGenius<ref>{{Cite web |title=ChipGenius official website |url=https://www.chipgenius.org/ |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251209080714/https://www.chipgenius.org/ |archive-date=9 Dec 2025}}</ref>''' (Windows/Mac) to verify real capacity.
*Check seller ratings and reviews carefully.
*Avoid deals that seem "too good to be true."
*Prefer purchases from reputable brands and authorized dealers.
*Avoid unbranded or off-brand drives.

==Marketplace response and regulation==
Both eBay and Amazon have policies against counterfeit goods and work to remove fraudulent listings. However, these policies are rarely enforced and thousands of fake items, not just flash memory are listed on these platforms, sometimes for years without being removed.

==Preventative tips for buyers==

*Purchase from official brand stores or verified sellers.
*Test the USB drive immediately upon receipt. It is highly recommended to use H2testw or F3 (Fight Flash Fraud) to write to the entire drive to test the performance and integrity of the flash memory. If the performance is much lower than expected, or you encounter errors, you should return the drive immediately.
*Be cautious of heavily discounted drives claiming unusually large storage.
*Keep evidence such as receipts and product packaging for dispute resolution.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Amazon]]
[[Category:eBay]]

FreePhoneLine revokes Lifetime VoIP service for monthly subscription model

2026-02-25T05:02:00Z

Big Mac: Categories added (best guess based on similar Anova Culinary page)

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=FreePhoneLine
|StartDate=2024
|EndDate=
|Status=
|ProductLine=
|Product=
|ArticleType=
|Type=Broken Promise, Rent-seeking
|Description=
}}
[[File:Freephoneline.ca Order Confirmation-1.jpg|alt=bill for line 1|thumb|bill for line 1]]The [https://www.crunchbase.com/person/jody-schnarr CEO] of [https://www.freephoneline.ca/ FreePhoneLine] , owned and run by [https://www.fongo.com/ Fongo], sponsored by DELL, has decided to change the terms of service of their "LIFETIME VoIP" license, taking it away from the people who purchased it and replacing it with a monthly subscription model.<ref>{{Cite web |title=FreePhoneLine (Fongo) Now Charging for 911 Services |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/VOIP/comments/1eb9ltj/freephoneline_fongo_now_charging_for_911_services/ |url-status=live |access-date=27 Apr 2025 |website=[[Reddit]] |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250324014356/https://old.reddit.com/r/VOIP/comments/1eb9ltj/freephoneline_fongo_now_charging_for_911_services/ |archive-date=24 Mar 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=@Liptonbrisk |date=25 Jul 2024 |title=$1.95 + tax per month (or $23.40 + tax annually) 911 fee for VoIP unlock key users starting October 1, 2024 |url=https://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?t=20780&start=75 |url-status=live |access-date=27 Apr 2025 |website=forum.fongo.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251009111756/https://forum.fongo.com/viewtopic.php?t=20780&start=75 |archive-date=9 Oct 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The End of FreePhoneLine as we've known. 911= $1.95 / Month Starting Oct-1 2024 |url=https://forums.redflagdeals.com/end-freephoneline-weve-known-911-1-95-month-starting-oct-1-2024-2704981/2/ |url-status=live |access-date=27 Apr 2025 |website=forums.redflagdeals.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260216100322/https://forums.redflagdeals.com/end-freephoneline-weve-known-911-1-95-month-starting-oct-1-2024-2704981/2/ |archive-date=16 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=911 Emergency Services (No VoIP Unlock key) |url=https://support.freephoneline.ca/hc/en-us/articles/212429546-911-Emergency-Services-No-VoIP-Unlock-key |url-status=live |access-date=27 Apr 2025 |website=support.freephoneline.ca |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250808200911/https://support.freephoneline.ca/hc/en-us/articles/212429546-911-Emergency-Services-No-VoIP-Unlock-key |archive-date=8 Aug 2025}}</ref>
==Background==
In the second half of 2024, FreePhoneLine started sending out emails stating that they are changing the terms of sale, revoking everyone's Lifetime License and replacing it with a monthly subscription model.

Backlash ensued, since people paid in excess of $100 for these "Lifetime" licenses. Additionally, the original terms of service already included a 911 pay-per-use fee of $35<ref name=":0" /> every time it was called whether an emergency or not. And their prices for the license were already increasing year by year.

The company ignored all complaints. The Better Business Bureau could not even get a hold of anyone to talk to at the company. Looking at their BBB complaints, most have gone unanswered.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Freephoneline.ca |url=https://www.bbb.org/ca/on/waterloo/profile/telephones/freephonelineca-0107-1183750/complaints?page=1&status=unanswered |url-status=live |access-date=27 Apr 2025 |website=Better Business Bureau |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250321023821/https://www.bbb.org/ca/on/waterloo/profile/telephones/freephonelineca-0107-1183750/complaints?page=1&status=unanswered |archive-date=21 Mar 2025}}</ref>[[File:Freephoneline.ca Order Confirmation-2.jpg|alt=bill for line 2 showing price increase|thumb|bill for line 2 showing price increase]]
==Incident==
The company has a history of changing their terms of sale after purchase.<ref>{{Cite web |title=About VoIP Unlock Key |url=https://support.freephoneline.ca/hc/en-us/articles/212430686-About-VoIP-Unlock-Key |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507043439/https://support.freephoneline.ca/hc/en-us/articles/212430686-About-VoIP-Unlock-Key |archive-date=7 May 2021 |access-date=27 Apr 2025 |website=support.freephoneline.ca}}</ref> Sometime around June of 2021, they changed their terms of sale to prevent connections to PBX systems for personal and commercial use. And any commercial use period.<ref>{{Cite web |title=About VoIP Unlock Key |url=https://support.freephoneline.ca/hc/en-us/articles/212430686-About-VoIP-Unlock-Key |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210726205858/https://support.freephoneline.ca/hc/en-us/articles/212430686-About-VoIP-Unlock-Key |archive-date=26 Jul 2021 |access-date=27 Apr 2025 |website=support.freephoneline.ca}}</ref>

Around June of 2024 they started sending out emails, changing the terms of sale and revoking everyone's Lifetime License in exchange for a monthly subscription model, which they blamed on increasing 911 costs even though they were already charging a pay-per-use fee for 911 calls.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:FreePhoneLine]]
[[Category:Service Siphoning]]

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs

2026-02-19T03:15:56Z

Big Mac: /* Consumerrights wiki not translatable via translate.google.com */

[[Category:CRW]]
<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — Issues of Interest to Developers</div>
When reporting a bug, please include as much detail as possible to help developers reproduce and fix the issue.
'''Please do not report security issues here'''. Email them to '''security@fulu.org''' instead.

*'''Check for duplicates:''' look through existing reports before posting to avoid repeats.
*'''System details:''' include your operating system, browser, and platform (e.g. Windows, macOS, Linux, x86, ARM, Chrome, Edge, Safari, Firefox).
*'''Inputs and outputs:''' describe what you did, what you expected to happen, and what actually happened.
*'''Reproduction steps:''' provide clear, step-by-step instructions so developers can replicate the bug.
*For general discussions or suggestions not related to bugs, please use the [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Moderators' noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs|Report a new bug]]</div>

*You will receive a response from [[User:JakeL]], who is contracted to provide professional support for this wiki in a production environment.
</div>
<br />
{{Archives}} 

==Wiki search engine indexing==

There are a couple of posts asking about search engine indexing of this wiki: [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard#Should CRW be indexed by search engines?]] and [[Talk:Main Page#Suggestion: Implementing a /robots.txt page]]. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 02:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

:We are currently looking into this and I will update the thread as and when we have a solution or any further news. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 00:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

==How do you edit beginning of an article with StubNotice?==

I was trying to edit the beginning of the article on [[Medical ventilator]] (to add a see also link to the medical equipment article).

The article has a StubNotice template at the beginning (on the same line as the beginning of the first paragraph).

When I try to save changes after making ANY change to the text on the same line as the stub notice template, it will not save (it gives me a message telling me about the procedure for requesting stubnotice removal). I am not trying to move or remove the stub notice, I didn't touch that. Even if all I try to do is put a newline or space after the template, or change words on the first line, it won't let me. This happens whether I use the visual editor or the source editor. I am using firefox running on linux.

I can save changes later on in that article, and I have edited other articles marked as stubs without issue.

The stubnotice documentation and talk page do not seem to document this behaviour, or tell me what to do. If this is desired behaviour, then the template should explain how to handle it.

Thank you. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 21:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

:Not a mod, but I think I can respond to this. You can’t and this is pretty much desired behaviour. The [[Special:AbuseFilter|Abuse filter]] is the reason for it. It does attack more than just that area too as it thinks you’re changing the notice. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
::I don't understand why this behavior would be desired. To me it seems like a bug, where the abuse filter is protecting more than it should.
::Regardless, how can we improve the lead paragraph when we can not change it?
::*Are we supposed to duplicate the immutable first paragraph, putting any revisions/improvements in a secondary copy of the first paragraph? Is there a standard template or way to document what is going on so it doesn't confuse readers when they see two first paragraphs?
::*Do we need to propose edits to the first paragraph in some form on the talk page, then request an administrator to come and actually make the change? (If so, how/where do we make the request?)
::*Are we expected to just ignore problems in the first paragraph, and revise the rest of it until the stub can be removed?
::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 01:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
::I wonder if this edit, where an administrator used the visual editor to delete a deletion tag after the stubnotice might be part of the problem. Prior to that edit, the stubnotice was on its own line. After that edit, the stubnotice is on the same line as the first paragraph.
::https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Shortage_of_medical_ventilators_during_the_COVID_pandemic&diff=prev&oldid=25186
::If the abuse filter intentionally protects everything on the stubnotice line, then the problem may be in the visual editor, which should ensure that it preserves the newline at the end of a protected line. (At the very least, it should warn an administrator when they are suddenly protecting a bunch of text that wasn't protected before.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I personally don’t like the current ‘stub notice can only be removed by mods’ anyway, and there are loads of article maintenance templates which '''don’t have this for some reason'''. Proposing edits in talk page is actually done on Wikipedia in the form of edit requests, where a mod will look at it there, but the thing is it won’t alert mods here to the request by just posting about it. The point about it protects the entire line seems valid to me and makes complete sense from my own experience, so I do think that is the most likely scenario. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
::::This is by design so that editors do not remove the notice until its been removed by staff for completeness. Once work on an article is completed you can post an appeal in the noticeboard or discord #appeals staff do actively check these so that peer edits can be approved and notices removed. This is both by policy and system design; it is not a bug. If you have thoughts on how we can improve this process feel free to bring it up in the dashboard - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 15:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::If this is desired behavior -- why? What purpose does it serve making it so the ''entire first paragraph'' of an article is ''immutable''?
:::::Note that the issue is the protection of the rest of the line, not the protection of the notice itself.
:::::@[[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] Sorry, I don't know where/what the dashboard is, please give me a link. In the meantime, I will post suggestions for improvement here. Thank you.
:::::How to improve it:
:::::*Fix the code, so that only the stubnotice template is protected, not the rest of the line.
:::::*Fix the code when submitting a change so that it ''always'' adds a newline immediately after a stubnotice (or other protected template) if there isn't one there.
:::::*When a moderator submits a change with anything on the same line as a protected template, (either by adding to it, or by deleting the newline at the end of the line) the software should issue a warning, telling them what this will do to everybody else and asking them to confirm that they really want to do that. (Make the warning simple, clear, blatant, something you have to type a response to so people will read it and not autoclick.)
:::::Temporary workarounds:
:::::Add cautionary notices to the stubnotice template and its documentation.
:::::*The documentation should explain this behavior, tell moderators what the intended use of protecting the rest of the line is, and warn moderators about the problems it can cause.
:::::*If the visual editor is part of the problem (as I suspect it may be, given the edit which caused the problem in this article), then the documentation should warn moderators to be especially careful when using it around stubnotices.
:::::*The template text should explain what is going on, so an editor encountering the problem for the first time knows what is happening, and what to do about it. (How to get help to fix this case.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 19:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just found that the template:incomplete has same problem. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 05:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::That part about the first paragraph being un-editable is not intended but the fact that users cannot edit the stub notice (or other notices) is created so someone cant just arbitrariliy edit their post removing the notices without staff review and formal appeal of the action by the user. As for where the dashboard is [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard]] here is a link to it. As for the rest of your concerns I will flag down one of the tech folks or Keith for you to provide a more detailed explaination or look into exactly why everything in a first paragraph is being locked down as if someone adds a stub notices it should be at the top and above all text so there should be a seperation between the article text and the stub notice. This might also just be a policy thing we need to discuss as the stub notice is working as intended but the text after it being locked is not. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 08:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Numeric usernames in cites produce warnings==
Usernames allow a wide range of characters. When <code>|author=</code> is used, the warning should not exist. The numberic warning should still exist on <code>|last=</code> and <code>|first=</code>. Many pages in [[:Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list]] are false positives. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:2384:101:B34:3E7B:6AF4:18CF|2A00:23C8:2384:101:B34:3E7B:6AF4:18CF]] 16:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

==Broken pages==

Hello, there are some pages that were created by the maintenance script that are all a subpage of Broken. You can find them by going down [[special:contribs/Maintenance script|here]]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

:These pages don't even seem to be deletable. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

==Consumerrights wiki not translatable via translate.google.com==

I wanted to share a page of this wiki with a Dutch-speal-king friend & Google Translate has this handy feature where you can drop a link, and it will generate a link with the webpage translated to your language of choice. Unfortunately, this feature doesn't seem to work for consumerrightswiki (returning a 403 Forbidden), limiting its reach to EN-only speakers. Is there any chance translate.google.com can be whitelisted?

This link is an example of translating the Microsoft_Windows page to Dutch: https://consumerrights-wiki.translate.goog/w/Microsoft_Windows?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=nl&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true

In DevTools:
[[File:Google Translate consumerrights.wiki failure.png|alt=Google Translate consumerrights.wiki failure|thumb|Google Translate consumerrights.wiki failure]]
[[User:Webketje|Webketje]] ([[User talk:Webketje|talk]]) 09:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:I tested it and am getting the same problem. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 10:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::this website isnt indexed by search engines, thats probably why this happens [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] That is not the issue; it is indexed by search engines (at least the main page). This is a server configuration issue, perhaps to do with X-Frame-Options or other headers [[User:Webketje|Webketje]] ([[User talk:Webketje|talk]]) 11:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

::::Wow! I think you have stumbled onto a clue to why Louis can not get page rank for Consumer Rights Wiki articles! If Google is banned from this website (or if Google thinks it is banned) that would explain both behaviours. We need to get eyes onto this bug. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 03:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

==Main page header blues are low contrans, and don't meet WCAG AAA standards.==

<nowiki>#</nowiki>7FB6FF for links and #004080 for background are too close to each other. It is improvement over prevous conmination, but still not super accessible for color blind people. Blue and black themes are quite hard to make because both are dark colors. You can ping me here or in Discord if you want to discuss accessibility. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Header Icons in vector-header class header are changing to black in dark theme==

Icons like Alerts, Notices, Watchlist and Personal settings are switching to black when device is in dark theme. Tested in chrome and firefox, on Linux (ubuntu 24.04 LTS + KDE) and Mac. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Visited links on dark blue background doesnt meet WCAG accessibility standards==

<nowiki>#</nowiki>6a60b0 for link text on #1b223d has contrast of 2.91 which is way off for color blind people. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Class infobox blocks are shifting layout and moves parts of first entry in lists they are above==

Good example is Previous discussions block in this page. It has too low width or margins, so flex layout wraps first entry in list around it. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==w/Special:Preferences header has no background==

w/Special:Preferences has same header functions as other pages header, but has other styling [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Category:Wiki root subcategories with 1 article should be always in expanded state==

This will reduce amount of clicks to some articles and make user experience little touch better [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Width radio buttons in Appearance section of vector-sticky-pinned-container navbar does not change anything==

Tested in chrome and firefox, both Linux (ubuntu 24.04 lts + KDE) and Mac. Width radio buttons don't change anything in any page I opened to check it out. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==/Sandbox and /Sandbox/Welcome are redundant==

/Sandbox/Welcome is looking same and does absolutely same stuff as /Sandbox [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Ability to edit Main Page.css and Main Page/Portals in Special:UncategorizedPages is bit of security issue==

I'd consider hiding that pages or adding permissions required to edit them, as both can be used for malicious actions. WIth css it will be just okay, let's make this look like circus or unusable, but with Portals you can embed external links directly in them. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==vector-sticky-pinned-container navbar hide button pinning to static header is counterintuitive==

If you click on hide option, It creates just another button in static header, which is super confusing for those who have not a lot of technical knowledge [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:Same with tools being pinned to vector-menu-content-list [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==w/Special:Preferences ⧼prefs-reading⧽ key is not parsed==

This value is fallbacked as key name because it points to non existing entry [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

== Caching issue with mobile view ==

Pages not rendering the correct view [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 14:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Minecraft account migration

2026-02-06T13:36:37Z

Big Mac: 'Category:2020 incidents' added

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Microsoft, Mojang
|StartDate=2020-10-21
|EndDate=2023-12-18
|Status=Unresolved
|ProductLine=
|Product=Minecraft Java Edition
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Forced Migration, Service Termination
|Description=Minecraft players were forced to migrate their Mojang accounts to Microsoft accounts or lose access to their account.
}}
On October 21st, 2020, [[Mojang]] announced that all Minecraft Java Edition users must migrate their Mojang accounts to Microsoft accounts to retain access to the game. On December 18th, 2023, consumers who did not do so lost access and needed to re-purchase the game to regain it.

==General==
[[wikipedia:Minecraft|'''''Minecraft''''']] is a sandbox video game developed by Swedish developer '''Mojang Studios''' (also known as '''Mojang AB''' or simply '''Mojang'''). The original PC version of the game was created by Markus "Notch" Persson using the Java programming language, and it is known as "Minecraft Java Edition". The first public alpha version of Java Edition came out on May 17th, 2009, then fully released on November 18th, 2011. On September 15th, 2014, Mojang was acquired by '''[[Microsoft]]'''.<ref name=":1" />

Throughout Java Edition's development, players could exclusively access their purchased copy of the game through the use of a Mojang account.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2026-01-13 |title=Post-Migration Process FAQ |url=https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/19615552270221 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230919160438/https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/19615552270221 |archive-date=2023-09-19 |access-date=2026-01-13 |website=Minecraft Help center}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bug |first=Kiori |date=2020-10-21 |title=JAVA Account Migration: What You Need to Know |url=https://www.minecraftforum.net/news/60814-java-account-migration-what-you-need-to-know |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201022100937/https://www.minecraftforum.net/news/60814-java-account-migration-what-you-need-to-know |archive-date=2020-10-22 |access-date=2026-01-11 |website=Minecraft Forum}}</ref> However, on October 21st, 2020, Mojang announced that Minecraft Java Edition players must migrate their Mojang accounts to Microsoft accounts.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Minecraft |first=Staff |date=2020-10-21 |title=Java Edition is Moving House |url=https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/java-edition-moving-house |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201021193019/https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/java-edition-moving-house |archive-date=2020-10-21 |access-date=2026-01-13 |website=Minecraft}}</ref>. Consumers who did not migrate their accounts by December 18th, 2023 lost their access to the game and had to re-purchase Minecraft Java Edition under a Microsoft account with a new username at full retail price if they wanted to play.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2026-01-11 |title=Information about Mojang Accounts and Microsoft Account Migration |url=https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/19633473939981-I-Missed-My-Chance-to-Migrate-What-Happens-to-My-Account |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240220034049/https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/19633473939981-I-Missed-my-Chance-to-Migrate-What-Happens-to-my-Account |archive-date=2024-02-20 |access-date=2026-01-11 |website=Minecraft Help Center}}</ref>

At the time of Mojang's acquisition by Microsoft, the PC version of Minecraft was known as "Minecraft Java Edition". Before the acquisition and at least through the end of 2019, customers who wanted to purchase Minecraft Java Edition would do so by creating a Mojang account and buying the game under that account's name.<ref name=":1">[https://web.archive.org/web/20191219131419/https://my.minecraft.net/en-us/login/ "Archived Minecraft Website from December 19, 2019 showing Mojang Accounts were the exclusive method of signing in"] - archive.org</ref> Minecraft Java Edition owners would then play the game by signing into the game's launcher with their Mojang Account.

Mojang announced on October 21, 2020 that Minecraft Java Edition players would need to migrate their Mojang account to a Microsoft account.<ref name=":4" /> Those who migrated their Mojang accounts to Microsoft accounts would maintain access to their username, cosmetics, player worlds, and earn an exclusive cosmetic cape.<ref name=":4" />

Mojang's staff wrote wrote the following about the account migration: <blockquote>"Now just to be clear, migrating from Mojang to Microsoft accounts is ''mandatory''. If you don’t make the move, in several months you won’t be able to log in anymore – which means you won’t be able to play either."<ref name=":4" /></blockquote>Account migration started in waves or "batches" sometime in early 2021.<ref name=":4" />Initially, account migration was voluntary, and users with Mojang accounts could play Minecraft Java Edition without needing to migrate their accounts. On February 2, 2022, Mojang announced that on March 10, 2022 the voluntary migration period would end and that Mojang account users would be unable to play Minecraft Java Edition without migrating their account. On May 8, 2023, Mojang announced that Mojang account owners would have until September 19, 2023 to migrate to a Microsoft account or permanently lose the capacity to migrate their account. Following this September 19, 2023 deadline, Mojang gave Mojang account owners who missed the deadline a three month grace period through December 18, 2023 to migrate their account.<ref name=":2">[https://web.archive.org/web/20231210202436/https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/19615552270221 "Post-Migration Process FAQ"] - help.minecraft.net - archived 2023-12-10</ref><ref name=":0" /> Mojang account owners who exercised their option under this three-month grace period would not have access to the cosmetics associated with their Mojang account or the certainty that they would enjoy the username associated with their Mojang account under their Microsoft account. After December 18, 2023, Mojang account owners who had purchased Minecraft Java Edition from Mojang would need to purchase Minecraft under a Microsoft account in order to play the game.

On a page titled "I Missed My Chance to Migrate. What Happens to My Account?" on the official Minecraft Help Center, Mojang explains:

"To continue playing Minecraft, you will have to buy Minecraft: Java & Bedrock Edition using a Microsoft account."<ref name=":3">[https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/19633473939981-I-Missed-My-Chance-to-Migrate-What-Happens-to-My-Account "I Missed My Chance to Migrate. What Happens to My Account?"] - help.minecraft.net - accessed 2025-02-01</ref><ref name=":5" />

Due to the age of Minecraft, and not needing a email to sign in, many of the email address's that were linked to old accounts had been forgotten, lost, or deleted. This left players unable to migrate their old Mojang accounts, even if they were aware of the situation. Microsoft offered little support to these players as, even during the migration period, it was not made easy to contact the people behind Minecraft. Support was not replying to questions about the migration process and issues with it.

Users who could not figure out how to migrate their accounts that they bought in the pre-release era had to re-purchase Minecraft with a different username for a post-release price (Alpha costing 9.95€, Beta costing 14.95€, and the full release being 29.99€). Additionally, even if users successfully migrated their account, in the event that their Microsoft account is compromised, there is currently no avenue for Minecraft account recovery or refunding the initial purchase, and the user is required to re-purchase Minecraft to regain access to the game<ref>https://archive.org/details/microsoft-email</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-24 |title=Can i do something against this? Microsoft says that I have to repurchase the game!? |url=https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fcan-i-do-something-against-this-microsoft-says-that-i-have-v0-yjhz852gys8d1.png%3Fwidth%3D2028%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc3fefb859c778af5218802093b645ecc21d06702 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812032340/http://web.archive.org/screenshot/https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fcan-i-do-something-against-this-microsoft-says-that-i-have-v0-yjhz852gys8d1.png%3Fwidth%3D2028%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc3fefb859c778af5218802093b645ecc21d06702 |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-11}}</ref>.

In https://web.archive.org/web/20210813083726/https://notch.tumblr.com/post/2175441966/minecraft-beta-december-20-2010 Notch promised in his blog that all purchasers of the Alpha version of the game would get all purchases of the game for free, even saying ''"a promise is a promise"'', as he removed it from purchases made after the release of Beta.

==Class Action Lawsuit==
On August 16th, 2025, Kian Brose announced that they have partnered with Singularity Law AB (Sweden) to file a class-action lawsuit against Mojang<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brose |first=Kian |date=16 Aug 2025 |title=We’re Suing Minecraft in a Class Action Lawsuit |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_UF_4gZclI |url-status=live}}</ref> for their anti-consumer practices. Of the several types of damage groups mentioned in the announcement video, the class with the most potential participants is anyone impacted by this account migration.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Minecraft]]
[[Category:2020 incidents]]

Audi Basic HVAC "Sync" Function Paywalled

2026-02-06T13:30:12Z

Big Mac: Changing 'Category:Incidents' to 'Category:2022 incidents'

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Audi
|StartDate=April 2022
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=Audi Q4 E-Tron
|Product=Audi Q4 E-Tron
|ArticleType=Incident
|Type=Digital Restrictions, Firmware Lockout, Ownership
|Description=Audi charges $758 for an HVAC “Sync” button, which is physically present within the vehicle, but disabled until a payment is made.
}}
{{StubNotice}}

'''[[Audi]]''' equips all vehicles with the optional tri-zone climate control feature with the necessary hardware. Customers who do not purchase the option at the time of sale still receive the hardware, but the feature is disabled via software. Enabling it later via a remote software update costs $758. Reminders prompting a purchase are displayed if a user presses the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) sync button before the feature is unlocked.

==Background==
[[Audi]] is an automotive manufacturer of luxury vehicles based in Germany. Audi is a subsidiary company of '''[[Volkswagen]]'''.

Historically, if a vehicle owner opted out of purchasing a specific feature, any buttons associated with that feature would be replaced with blank plastic panels, often called "blank buttons." Pressing these blank buttons would not activate any functions or mechanisms within the vehicle.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nagaraj |first=Rahul |date=5 Apr 2022 |title=Audi EV owner finds paywalled HVAC function |url=https://www.team-bhp.com/news/audi-ev-owner-finds-paywalled-hvac-function#:~:text=Historically%2C%20cars%20with,for%20the%20same. |access-date=21 Aug 2025 |website=Team-BHP}}</ref>

However, '''[[Features on Demand|Features on Demand (FoD)]]''' is becoming increasingly popular among car manufacturers. FoD features are subscription-type features, meaning they can only be enabled with a subscription.

==Incident==
An owner of an Audi Q4 E-Tron opted out of paying for tri-zone climate control, which is an optional add-on in regions outside of the U.S. and U.K., priced at $758.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stumpf |first=Rob |date=1 Apr 2022 |title=Audi Owner Finds Basic HVAC Function Paywalled After Pressing the Button for It |url=https://www.thedrive.com/news/44967/audi-owner-finds-basic-hvac-function-paywalled-after-pressing-the-button-for-it#:~:text=In%20Denmark%2C%20where%20this%20particular%20owner%20told%20us%20they%E2%80%99re%20based%2C%20the%20add%2Don%20costs%20around%20$758%20(5%2C114%20Kroner).%20The%20owner%20acknowledged%20that%20they%20chose%20against%20purchasing%20it%20but%20didn%E2%80%99t%20expect%20pressing%20the%20button%20to%20display%20a%20message. |access-date=21 Aug 2025 |website=The Drive}}</ref> However, the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) “Sync” button was still physically present within the vehicle. Upon pressing the button, a message would appear on the infotainment screen, stating “the function has not been purchased.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 Apr 2022 |title=Audi Driver Horrified After Basic Functionality Hidden Behind Paywall |url=https://carbuzz.com/news/audi-q4-e-tron-owner-stunned-by-paywall-block-on-climate-control-feature/#:~:text=When%20a%20feature,not%20been%20purchased%22. |access-date=21 Aug 2025 |website=CarBuzz}}</ref> The lack of a blank button, and message reminding the user of the unpaid feature has caused speculation on whether [[Audi]] was planning to introduce FoD features or not.

===Audi's Response===
While not explicitly responding to the incident, Oliver Hoffman, the head of the Technical Development division at the time, has suggested that FoD will appear more within the future, "With our next generation of electronic architecture, we will bring more offers to 'function on demand,' and you will see year by year we will bring new functions in the cars…A few years ago, there were ideas to generate more revenue on digitalization functions than by selling cars."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Neves |first=Jarryd |date=5 Nov 2023 |title=Audi Going Big With On-Demand Subscription Features |url=https://carbuzz.com/news/audi-going-big-with-on-demand-subscription-features-from-2024/#:~:text=This%20is%20according%20to%20Oliver,A4%2C%20A5%2C%20and%20Q5. |access-date=21 Aug 2025 |website=CarBuzz}}</ref> [[Audi]] insists that the decision to pivot towards FoD was in response to consumer demand.

==Consumer response==
Some users on [[Reddit]], in direct response to the incident, were fearful and frustrated about the possible future of the automotive industry. Many believed this would result in subscriptions being required to access most functions, imagining a reality where many of even the most basic features are locked behind paywalls.<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 Apr 2022 |title=A dashboard button leads to a Reddit reckoning about over-the-air car software |url=https://thenextweb.com/news/a-blank-hvac-button-reveals-a-deeper-fear-about-ota-car-software#:~:text=A%20portal%20to,Raid%20Shadow%20Legends. |access-date=21 Aug 2025 |website=The Next Web}}</ref>

Others were more generally opposed to features that are only available through subscriptions. In a survey conducted by the Cox Automotive, 58% of respondents stated that FoD, atleast initially, would be "too expensive," and 69% stated that if the features were only available via subscription, they would "shop elsewhere."<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 May 2023 |title=Selling Subscription-based Vehicle Features Will Challenge Automakers in Unexpected Ways |url=https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/selling-subscription-based-vehicle-features-will-challenge-automakers-in-unexpected-ways/#:~:text=The%20study%20suggests,the%20research%20shows. |access-date=21 Aug 2025 |website=Cox Automotive}}</ref> However, only 21% were previously aware of FoD, and 65% believe that if free-trials for subscriptions were provided, they'd be more likely to consider a brand.

==See also==

*[[Mercedes-Benz EQS rear-wheel steering requires subscription]]
*[[Mercedes-Benz locks horsepower behind paid subscription]]
*[[Tesla locks battery range behind paywall]]
*[[Tesla locks heated rear seats behind paywall]]
*[[BMW feature lockout scandal]]
*[[BMW's heated seat subscription]]
*[[Software locks]]
*[[Mazda remote-start subscription]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Audi]]
[[Category:2022 incidents]]

BMW's heated seat subscription

2026-02-06T13:24:03Z

Big Mac: Category:2022 incidents added

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=BMW
|StartDate=2022-07
|EndDate=
|Status=
|ProductLine=
|Product=
|ArticleType=
|Type=Rent-seeking
|Description=
}}
In July 2022, [[BMW]] started charging a subscription for their heated seats as part of their Functions on Demand system.<ref>{{Cite web |title=BMW ConnectedDrive seamlessly integrates your mobile devices, smart home technology, and your vehicle's intelligent interfaces into a complete driver's environment. |url=https://www.bmwusa.com/explore/connecteddrive.html |url-status=live |access-date=1 Apr 2025 |website=[[BMW]]}}</ref> BMW's "Functions on Demand" system operates on a user opt-in/out subscription to enable various functions inside their vehicles. In September 2023, BMW stated that they are no longer charging a subscription for heated seats.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Attwood |first=James |date=7 Sep 2023 |title=BMW will not charge extra to activate existing functions in cars |url=https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bmw-will-not-charge-extra-activate-existing-functions-cars#:~:text=What%20we%20don%E2%80%99t%20do%20any%20more |url-status=live |access-date=1 Apr 2025 |website=AutoCar}}</ref>
==Heated seat subscription==
[[File:Bmw-heated-seats-subscription.jpg|thumb|370x370px|South Korean heated seat subscription pricing. Photo by motor1.com taken from BMW South Korea.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Padeanu |first=Adrian |date=11 Jul 2022 |title=BMW Heated Seats Subscription Is Real And It Costs $18 Per Month |url=https://www.motor1.com/news/597376/bmw-heated-seats-subscription/ |url-status=live |access-date=1 Apr 2025 |website=Motor1}}</ref>]]
BMW stated that around 90% of customers would order the optional heated seat package.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Christopher |date=14 Jul 2022 |title=BMW USA Won't Have Heated Seat Subscription If Option Is Already Chosen |url=https://www.motor1.com/news/598281/bmw-usa-heated-seat-subscription-if-option-chosen/#:~:text=As%20premium%20vehicle,ConnectedDrive%20store%20online. |url-status=live |access-date=1 Apr 2025 |website=Motor1}}</ref> In order to streamline their factories, they started installing heated seats in all vehicles. Ordinarily, the costs saved by streamlining factories would be passed on to customers with lower vehicle pricing, or by offering advanced features at a more competitive price. However, BMW's approach is to continuously charge customers for such features, using recurring fees rather than a one-time purchase.

BMW started testing the waters with their heated seat subscription in South Korea. South Koreans' monthly pricing is ₩24,000. Using the 2022 currency conversion to USD, this works out to approximately:<ref name=":1" />

*$18/mo
*$176/yr
*$283/3yr
*$406 for unlimited use

A similar subscription is offered for heated steering wheels, with costs at:<ref name=":1" />

*$10/mo
*$92/yr
*$161/3yr
*$222 for unlimited use

==Legal impact==
Introduced in September 2022, New Jersey's Assembly proposed a bill to make it illegal for automobile manufacturers to offer subscription services for any motor vehicle feature that:<ref>https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A4519/2022</ref>

*Utilises components and hardware already installed on the motor vehicle at the time of purchase or lease by the consumer; and
*Would function after activation without ongoing expense to the dealer, manufacturer, or any third-party service provider.

The bill later died in committee.<ref>https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S3271/2022</ref>

==Consumer response==
Many BMW owners found it unacceptable to pay a subscription for a feature that was physically present in their vehicles. A common feeling between consumers was that they were being "charged twice for something they already owned". There were also concerns over privacy and security, as the vehicles are connected to the internet and can be controlled by the manufacturer. This led to questions about data privacy and potential intrusions.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Prakash |first=Timothy |date=11 Sep 2023 |title=BMW Drops Heated Seats Subscription Due To Customer Backlash |url=https://thesun.my/motoring-news/bmw-drops-heated-seats-subscription-due-to-customer-backlash-JD11478313 |url-status=live |access-date=1 Apr 2025 |website=The Sun}}</ref>

==BMW's response==
In September 2023, following severe consumer backlash, BMW suspended their heated seat subscription model. However, they still plan to look to explore other options regarding their Functions on Demand system.<ref name=":2" /> Some of these other options include dashcams and remote start functions, according to a BMW statement.<ref name=":0" />

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:BMW]]
[[Category:2022 incidents]]

World of Warcraft

2026-02-06T12:14:38Z

Big Mac: Adding Category:World of Warcraft

{{StubNotice}}
{{ProductCargo
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Video Games, MMOs
|Company=Activision Blizzard
|Description=
|InProduction=Yes
|Logo=World of Warcraft 2002.webp
|ProductLine=
|ReleaseYear=2004
|Website=https://worldofwarcraft.blizzard.com/
}}
'''{{Wplink|World of Warcraft}}''' (colloquially referred to as '''WoW''') is a massively multiplayer online game maintained by [[Activision Blizzard]]. Despite the product's critical acclaim since the 2000s, the treatment of the product has had a historically negative trend, facing anti-consumer affairs at the request of its publisher.

==Consumer impact summary==
*'''Forced arbitration:''' Blizzard's [[EULA|End User License Agreement]] contains clauses that [[forced arbitration|mandate arbitration]] and waives the user's right to [[class action]].<ref>{{Cite web |author= |title=Blizzard End User License Agreement |url=https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal/fba4d00f-c7e4-4883-b8b9-1b4500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement |website=Blizzard Entertainment |date=1 Jun 2018 |access-date=17 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919091644/https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal/fba4d00f-c7e4-4883-b8b9-1b4500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement  |archive-date=19 Sep 2018}}</ref>
*'''Ownership:''' Per the EULA, it is stated that the end user is only sold a ''license'' and does not own their copy of the video game.

==Incidents==
This is a list of all consumer protection incidents related to this product. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].

===Warden anti-cheat (2005)===
In 2005, it came to light that Blizzard Entertainment was utilizing an in-house anti-cheat program when the video game company filed an infringement lawsuit against MDY Industries, LLC, who sold a {{Wplink|Video game bot|botting program}} called {{Wplink|Glider (bot)|Glider}}. The legal filings were the first time that Blizzard acknowledged both the anti-cheat's existence and its official name (Warden). The {{Wplink|Electronic Frontier Foundation}} (EFF) denounced Warden as [[spyware]] due to the lack of transparency and concerns over the privacy and retention of collected data.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ward |first=Mark |title=Warcraft game maker in spying row |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4385050.stm |website=BBC News |date=31 Oct 2005 |access-date=17 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051103043944/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4385050.stm |archive-date=3 Nov 2005}}</ref>

Further reading: [https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Warden_(software) Warcraft Wiki: Warden (software)], ''{{Wplink|MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzard_Entertainment,_Inc.}}''

===Real ID (July 2010)===
[[Real ID]] (July 2010): Real ID was a change introduced by Blizzard, where players would use their real first and last name when posting on WoW forums (instead of their preferred WoW character, as it was before). Initially announced as optional, it was quickly changed to obligatory, with Blizzard arguing it to be a vital step for reducing toxicity in gaming community. Community pushback was massive and united, with many citing privacy threats as the main concern. Blizzard initially tried to downplay the danger, even banning several people, but eventually buckled under the pressure. Then-CEO Mike Morhaime declared that, following user feedback, using Real ID to post on the forums would not be required.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Yin-Poole |first=Wesley |date=9 Jul 2010 |title=Blizzard scraps Real ID for its forums |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/blizzard-scraps-real-id-for-its-forums |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/NWiYC |archive-date=2026-02-02 |access-date=14 Apr 2025 |website=EuroGamer}}</ref>

===Major data loss (August 2024)===
When [https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Patch_11.0.2 Patch 11.0.2] was released on 13 August 2024, a serious bug caused the contents of some [https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Guild_bank guild bank(s)] to go missing to varying degrees of severity (up to everything) regardless of player faction and world region. The only official acknowledgement of the problem at that time was a support article that was created four days later, on 17 August.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Blizzard Support - Items Missing from Guild Bank |url=https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/000363630 |website=Battle.net |date=17 Aug 2024 |access-date=19 Sep 2024 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240818102435/https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/000363630 |archive-date=18 Aug 2024}}</ref> Except for a Customer Support agent on the European forum,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Guild Bank items gone |url=https://eu.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/guild-bank-items-gone/528709/38 |author=Felranys |website=Blizzard.com |date=16 Aug 2024 |access-date=2 Jul 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240927065929/https://eu.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/guild-bank-items-gone/528709?page=2#post_38 |archive-date=27 Sep 2024}}</ref> what followed was silence for over a month.

On 20 September 2024, Community Manager [https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Linxy Linxy] posted and pinned the following official statement in the General Discussion forum:<ref>{{Cite web |author=Linxy |title=Guild Bank Missing Items Update |url=https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/guild-bank-missing-items-update/1963451 |website=Blizzard.com |date=20 Sep 2024 |access-date=2 Jul 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240927091046/https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/guild-bank-missing-items-update/1963451 |archive-date=27 Sep 2024}}</ref>
<blockquote>
About a week after we launched patch 11.0.2 in August, we began receiving reports of an issue where some players were discovering items missing from their guild banks.

As we investigated over the next couple of days, we found the culprit—a technical update that was made to support cross-realm guilds. An unexpected bug caused one of our maintenance processes to make some items disappear. Many of these items were related to professions materials from prior expansions, but it was possible for players to lose other items from their guild banks as well.

For the last few weeks, we've been packing up the missing items that we're able to identify as lost by this process, and we will soon mail those to the guild leader character for each affected guild.

Due to how some of the data was lost, we've reached a point where the result will be an incomplete restoration for some guilds, and we do not have a way to restore the remaining missing items for them.

We apologize for that and for the long wait here. We really appreciate your patience as we've worked through this difficult issue.</blockquote>

The company unlisted the support article the same day and has made no further comments in the matter since, save to answer a couple questions regarding if the guild banks were safe to be used and to confirm whom the recovered contents would be [https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Mail mailed] to.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Linxy |title=Guild Bank Missing Items Update |url=https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/guild-bank-missing-items-update/1963451/26 |website=Battle.net |date=20 Sep 2024 |access-date=2 Jul 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241112223604/https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/guild-bank-missing-items-update/1963451/26 |archive-date=12 Nov 2024}}</ref>

On 13 November 2024, the pinned thread was renamed to "Guild Bank Missing Items Bug – Aug/Sept 2024" and moved to the Bug Report forum. It was unpinned 26 February 2025, when [https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Patch_11.1.0/ Patch 11.1.0] had been released in both the NA and EU regions.

No form of compensation was given to those affected by the {{Wplink|data loss}}. Additionally, an Australian player by the character name of Mordane on the server Dath'Remar shared the following update on 9 February 2025 in regards to their filed complaint with the {{Wplink|Australian Competition and Consumer Commission}}:<ref>{{Cite web |author=Mordane-Dath'Remar |date=9 Feb 2025 |title=Guild Bank Missing Items Bug – Aug/Sept 2024 |url=https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/guild-bank-missing-items-bug-augsept-2024/1963451/4933 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250708170840/https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/guild-bank-missing-items-bug-augsept-2024-part-1/1963 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |access-date=2 Jul 2025 |website=Blizzard.com}}</ref>
<blockquote>
[...] "Blizzard Australia Pty Ltd has stated "The lost guild bank assets are digital items, and we do not consider those items to hold any monetary real-world value. As such, we would be unable to provide this customer with any refunds in relation to the data that was lost and the items that could not be restored to their account."<br><br>Based on the above response by Blizzard, we will be closing the Complaint." [...]</blockquote>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Activision Blizzard]]
[[Category:World of Warcraft]]

Chamberlain removes API access from new and existing garage door openers

2026-02-05T04:47:12Z

Big Mac: Categories added (best guess based on similar BMW API restriction incident) - also citation needed template added for sections of article

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Chamberlain Group
|StartDate=2023-11
|EndDate=2024-03
|Status=Active
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Cloud, Privacy, Ownership
|Description=Chamberlain Group removed third party API access to new and existing garage door openers (forcing cloud connection and data collection).
}}
"If companies can modify internet-connected products and charge subscriptions after people have already purchased them, what does it mean to own anything anymore?" - The New York Times{{Citation needed}}

==Background==
In late 2023, [[Chamberlain Group|Chamberlain]] removed third party API access of their garage door openers. Their official reason was that third party applications were creating a DDoS-like strain on their servers. However, this is likely not the real reason behind the removal, because this strain can be mitigated by enabling local access, and there was a sudden increase in data collection and ads on the app after this happened.{{Citation needed}}

==Removal of API access==
Chamberlain now requires subscriptions for features such as opening your garage door from your car. They get payments from partners and also have targetive ads on the app. They also collect your personal data and share it with their affiliates. Removal of API access also breaks any third party ways to get around this, meaning if you want any of their promised cloud features, you must use their MyQ system.{{Citation needed}}

==Consumer response==

Consumers have severely rejected this. There are alternatives available that bring back this local control and get around the app (albeit in a complicated way). One example is RATGDO, a microcontroller developed by Paul Wieland, that takes back control of your garage door opener. There are also other options made by companies such as Meross, that achieve similar goals.{{Citation needed}}

You can read the New York Times article linked in the references for more info.
==References==
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/04/technology/personaltech/why-one-man-is-fighting-for-our-right-to-control-our-garage-door-openers.html?searchResultPosition=1

[[Category:Chamberlain Group]]
[[Category:Digital restrictions]]
[[Category:API restrictions]]
[[Category:Home automation]]
[[Category:2025 incidents]]

ASUS charges for previously free service

2026-02-05T04:08:46Z

Big Mac: Page listed on 'Dead-end pages' report. Added links to articles that actually exist.

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=ASUS
|StartDate=2023-5
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=ROG, Zenfone
|Product=
|ArticleType=
|Type=Digital Restrictions, False Advertising, Firmware Lockout
|Description=On May 2023, without giving a notice to the users, ASUS removed the ability for owners of the Zenfone and ROG Android phones to access the bootloader tools. As a follow-up, in Early 2024, ASUS began charging 185 euros for bootloader unlocking.
}}
The ASUS boot loader unlocking tool disappearing is a prime example of how device ownership rights have eroded, where functionality that was present at the time of sale is no longer present years down the line.

==Background==
[[ASUS]] used to provide free bootloader unlocking capabilities for their Zenfone & Republic of Gamers (ROG) Android phones.<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref> This feature was actively advertised & was part of the company's appeal to tech-savvy consumers.

===Timeline of Events===
*In May 2023, ASUS disabled their bootloader unlocking tools without warning<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>
*The company began removing posts about bootloader unlocking from their ZenTalk forums<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>
*Forum moderators claimed the tools were "under maintenance" or being "overhauled for compliance reasons" without providing timeframes for restoration<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>
*By early 2024, ASUS began charging approximately €185 (excluding VAT) for bootloader unlocking<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/post-89720356</ref>

==Impact==
This issue goes over several key consumer protection concerns:

*'''Removal of Advertised Features''': The bootloader unlocking capability was an advertised feature that influenced people's buying decision, which was later removed.
*'''Lack of Transparency''': ASUS provided minimal communication about the change in policy, with documented cases of forum posts being removed & only vague explanations being provided.<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref><ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref> In one of their communications with a customer, they seem to have accidentaly shared internal communication templates revealing the discontinuation of the bootloader unlock tool, without making any public announcements. <ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/update-unoff-bl-unlock-24-01-20-asus-closed-this-method.4649465/post-89761447/</ref>
*'''Monetization of Previously Free Features''': The transition from a free service to a paid one, costing €185 (excluding VAT), is a significant change in the product's pricing structure after purchase<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/post-89720356</ref>
*'''Extended Device Lifespan Impact''': The change affects consumers' ability to maintain & update their devices beyond ASUS's official support window, which has been documented as "one of the worst software support commitments in the Android world"<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>
[[File:Lawsuit against asus over bootloader unlocking.jpg|thumb|Document of customer small claims suit against ASUS over bootloader unlocking. Credit Mishaal Rahman on twitter <ref>https://x.com/MishaalRahman/status/1776306579979047083</ref> for this document showing the customer suit against ASUS]]
[[File:ASUS concedes defeat to customer who filed small claims court suit.png|alt=email from ASUS in response to customer small claims suit against ASUS over bootloader unlocking. |thumb|email from ASUS in response to customer small claims suit against ASUS over bootloader unlocking. Credit to Mishaal Rahman on twitter for providing the screenshot. <ref>https://x.com/MishaalRahman/status/1776306579979047083/photo/1
</ref>]]

==Legal Implications==
This led to at least one successful legal challenge. In March 2024, a UK customer took ASUS to small claims court over this and got a full refund for both the device & the court fees, totaling £770 (~$973). This case potentially sets a precedent for other consumers affected by the policy change.<ref>https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/</ref>

===Consumer Response===
The response from the consumer community has been notably negative, with documented concerns about:
*The high cost of the unlocking service (€185 excluding VAT)<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/post-89720356</ref>
*The principle of charging for a previously free feature<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/</ref>

===EU Warranty Implications===
This has additional implications in the European Union, where:
*It is illegal to deny warranty repairs based on software modifications<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/</ref>
*ASUS has been reported to deny warranty service for devices with unlocked bootloaders, despite this legal protection<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/</ref>
*The company has offered "one time warranty repairs" with the condition of relocking the bootloader<ref>https://xdaforums.com/t/asus-says-they-will-unlock-my-bootloader-for-money.4685488/</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Modern consumer exploitation]]
[[Category:Asus]]
[[Category:Software control]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]

Adobe sued by FTC over hidden fees in subscription plans

2026-02-05T03:56:46Z

Big Mac: 'Creative Cloud' wiki-linked

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Adobe
|StartDate=2024-6-17
|EndDate=
|Status=Pending Resolution
|ProductLine=
|Product=Adobe Creative Cloud
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Difficult to Cancel, Fees, Subscription
|Description=The FTC is suing Adobe over deceptive practices regarding its subscription services.
}}
The U.S. [[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against [[Adobe|Adobe Inc]]. and two of its executives, alleging deceptive subscription practices that violate federal consumer protection laws. In particular early termination fees in its "Annual, Paid Monthly" subscription plans.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Adobe of concealing critical terms of its subscription plans and creating obstacles to cancellation. Adobe denies wrongdoing, and the case is ongoing as of January 2025.

==Key allegations==

#'''Hidden Early Termination Fees (ETFs):'''
#*Adobe allegedly pre-selected its "Annual, Paid Monthly" (APM) subscription plan as the default option for users signing up for services like [[Adobe#Adobe_Creative_Cloud|Creative Cloud]].<ref name="natlaw">{{cite web |last=Marcus |first=Phyllis H. |date=2 July 2024 |title=FTC Sues Adobe and Execs for Illegal “Hidden Fees” |url=https://natlawreview.com/article/ftc-sues-adobe-and-execs-illegal-hidden-fees |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/CWr8R |archive-date=6 Jan 2026 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=The National Law Review}}</ref>
#*While marketed as a monthly payment plan, the APM plan locks users into a year-long contract. If canceled within the first year, users are charged an ETF amounting to 50% of the remaining annual payments.<ref name="natlaw" />
#*The FTC claims the ETF was buried in fine print or hidden behind hyperlinks that most consumers would not notice during the sign-up process.<ref>{{cite web |author= |date=17 June 2024 |title=FTC Takes Action Against Adobe and Executives for Hiding Fees, Preventing Consumers from Easily Cancelling Software Subscriptions |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/owfd2 |archive-date=28 Aug 2024 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=FTC goverment website}}</ref>
#'''Complex cancellation process:'''
#*Adobe's cancellation process reportedly requires navigating through multiple pages, re-entering passwords, providing feedback, and reviewing warnings about fees.<ref name="ftc2">{{cite web |last=Fair |first=Lesley |date=17 June 2024 |title=FTC says Adobe hid key terms of “annual paid monthly” subscription plan and set up roadblocks to deter customer cancellations |url=https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/06/ftc-says-adobe-hid-key-terms-annual-paid-monthly-subscription-plan-set-roadblocks-deter-customer |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240617162703/https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/06/ftc-says-adobe-hid-key-terms-annual-paid-monthly-subscription-plan-set-roadblocks-deter-customer |archive-date=2024-06-17 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>
#*Consumers attempting to cancel online or via customer service often faced dropped calls, multiple transfers, and continued charges even after cancellation attempts.<ref name="ftc2" />
#'''Violation of consumer protection laws:''' <br /> The FTC alleges that Adobe's practices violate the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) and the FTC Act<ref>{{cite web |last1=Butler |first1=Timothy A. |last2=White |first2=Matthew M. |last3=Cierny |first3=Tessa L. |date=9 July 2024 |title=FTC Targets Adobe for Hidden Fees and Deceptive Subscription Practices |url=https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2024/7/ftc-targets-adobe-for-hidden-fees-and-deceptive-subscription-practices |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/An9Mo |archive-date=6 Jan 2026 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=Greenberg Traurig,LLP}}</ref> by:
#*Failing to clearly disclose material terms upfront.
#*Charging consumers without obtaining express informed consent.
#*Not providing simple mechanisms for stopping recurring charges.

==FTC's legal action==
The FTC is seeking<ref>{{cite web |last1=Patton |first1=Kate |last2=Nava |first2=Maria |date=24 July 2024 |title=FTC Takes Action Against Adobe For Unfair Subscription Practices |url=https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/advertising-marketing-branding/1496334/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-for-unfair-subscription-practices |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/JaEJV |archive-date=6 Jan 2026 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=Mondaq - Law Articles and Insights}}</ref>:

*A permanent injunction to stop Adobe from continuing these practices.
*Civil penalties and monetary relief for affected consumers.

The lawsuit also names two Adobe executives—Maninder Sawhney and David Wadhwani—highlighting their roles in implementing these subscription practices. This reflects a growing trend in holding corporate officers personally accountable for deceptive business practices.

==Adobe's response==
Adobe has denied the allegations, stating that its subscription services are transparent and designed to provide flexibility to users. The company plans to contest the lawsuit in court.<ref>{{cite web |last=Griffin |first=Alaina |date=3 July 2024 |title=The FTC is suing software giant Adobe over hidden fees and an “overly complicated” cancellation process |url=https://www.archpaper.com/2024/07/the-ftc-is-suing-software-giant-adobe-over-hidden-fees-and-an-overly-complicated-cancellation-process/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240703183618/https://www.archpaper.com/2024/07/the-ftc-is-suing-software-giant-adobe-over-hidden-fees-and-an-overly-complicated-cancellation-process/ |archive-date=2024-07-03 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=The Architect's Newspaper}}</ref>

==Current status==
As of January 2025, the case remains pending in federal court. The FTC continues to push for stronger enforcement against hidden fees and deceptive subscription practices across industries.

==References==

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]
[[Category:Adobe]]
<references />

Adobe sued by FTC over hidden fees in subscription plans

2026-02-05T03:54:29Z

Big Mac: Page listed on 'Dead-end pages' report. Added links to articles that actually exist.

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Adobe
|StartDate=2024-6-17
|EndDate=
|Status=Pending Resolution
|ProductLine=
|Product=Adobe Creative Cloud
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Difficult to Cancel, Fees, Subscription
|Description=The FTC is suing Adobe over deceptive practices regarding its subscription services.
}}
The U.S. [[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against [[Adobe|Adobe Inc]]. and two of its executives, alleging deceptive subscription practices that violate federal consumer protection laws. In particular early termination fees in its "Annual, Paid Monthly" subscription plans.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Adobe of concealing critical terms of its subscription plans and creating obstacles to cancellation. Adobe denies wrongdoing, and the case is ongoing as of January 2025.

==Key allegations==

#'''Hidden Early Termination Fees (ETFs):'''
#*Adobe allegedly pre-selected its "Annual, Paid Monthly" (APM) subscription plan as the default option for users signing up for services like Creative Cloud.<ref name="natlaw">{{cite web |last=Marcus |first=Phyllis H. |date=2 July 2024 |title=FTC Sues Adobe and Execs for Illegal “Hidden Fees” |url=https://natlawreview.com/article/ftc-sues-adobe-and-execs-illegal-hidden-fees |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/CWr8R |archive-date=6 Jan 2026 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=The National Law Review}}</ref>
#*While marketed as a monthly payment plan, the APM plan locks users into a year-long contract. If canceled within the first year, users are charged an ETF amounting to 50% of the remaining annual payments.<ref name="natlaw" />
#*The FTC claims the ETF was buried in fine print or hidden behind hyperlinks that most consumers would not notice during the sign-up process.<ref>{{cite web |author= |date=17 June 2024 |title=FTC Takes Action Against Adobe and Executives for Hiding Fees, Preventing Consumers from Easily Cancelling Software Subscriptions |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/owfd2 |archive-date=28 Aug 2024 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=FTC goverment website}}</ref>
#'''Complex cancellation process:'''
#*Adobe's cancellation process reportedly requires navigating through multiple pages, re-entering passwords, providing feedback, and reviewing warnings about fees.<ref name="ftc2">{{cite web |last=Fair |first=Lesley |date=17 June 2024 |title=FTC says Adobe hid key terms of “annual paid monthly” subscription plan and set up roadblocks to deter customer cancellations |url=https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/06/ftc-says-adobe-hid-key-terms-annual-paid-monthly-subscription-plan-set-roadblocks-deter-customer |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240617162703/https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/06/ftc-says-adobe-hid-key-terms-annual-paid-monthly-subscription-plan-set-roadblocks-deter-customer |archive-date=2024-06-17 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>
#*Consumers attempting to cancel online or via customer service often faced dropped calls, multiple transfers, and continued charges even after cancellation attempts.<ref name="ftc2" />
#'''Violation of consumer protection laws:''' <br /> The FTC alleges that Adobe's practices violate the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) and the FTC Act<ref>{{cite web |last1=Butler |first1=Timothy A. |last2=White |first2=Matthew M. |last3=Cierny |first3=Tessa L. |date=9 July 2024 |title=FTC Targets Adobe for Hidden Fees and Deceptive Subscription Practices |url=https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2024/7/ftc-targets-adobe-for-hidden-fees-and-deceptive-subscription-practices |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/An9Mo |archive-date=6 Jan 2026 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=Greenberg Traurig,LLP}}</ref> by:
#*Failing to clearly disclose material terms upfront.
#*Charging consumers without obtaining express informed consent.
#*Not providing simple mechanisms for stopping recurring charges.

==FTC's legal action==
The FTC is seeking<ref>{{cite web |last1=Patton |first1=Kate |last2=Nava |first2=Maria |date=24 July 2024 |title=FTC Takes Action Against Adobe For Unfair Subscription Practices |url=https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/advertising-marketing-branding/1496334/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-for-unfair-subscription-practices |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/JaEJV |archive-date=6 Jan 2026 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=Mondaq - Law Articles and Insights}}</ref>:

*A permanent injunction to stop Adobe from continuing these practices.
*Civil penalties and monetary relief for affected consumers.

The lawsuit also names two Adobe executives—Maninder Sawhney and David Wadhwani—highlighting their roles in implementing these subscription practices. This reflects a growing trend in holding corporate officers personally accountable for deceptive business practices.

==Adobe's response==
Adobe has denied the allegations, stating that its subscription services are transparent and designed to provide flexibility to users. The company plans to contest the lawsuit in court.<ref>{{cite web |last=Griffin |first=Alaina |date=3 July 2024 |title=The FTC is suing software giant Adobe over hidden fees and an “overly complicated” cancellation process |url=https://www.archpaper.com/2024/07/the-ftc-is-suing-software-giant-adobe-over-hidden-fees-and-an-overly-complicated-cancellation-process/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240703183618/https://www.archpaper.com/2024/07/the-ftc-is-suing-software-giant-adobe-over-hidden-fees-and-an-overly-complicated-cancellation-process/ |archive-date=2024-07-03 |access-date=18 Feb 2025 |website=The Architect's Newspaper}}</ref>

==Current status==
As of January 2025, the case remains pending in federal court. The FTC continues to push for stronger enforcement against hidden fees and deceptive subscription practices across industries.

==References==

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]
[[Category:Adobe]]
<references />

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs

2026-02-05T03:42:19Z

Big Mac: /* Please fix link to this page ('Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs') on 'Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index' page */ new section

[[Category:CRW]]
<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — Issues of Interest to Developers</div>
When reporting a bug, please include as much detail as possible to help developers reproduce and fix the issue.
'''Please do not report security issues here'''. Email them to '''security@fulu.org''' instead.

*'''Check for duplicates:''' look through existing reports before posting to avoid repeats.
*'''System details:''' include your operating system, browser, and platform (e.g. Windows, macOS, Linux, x86, ARM, Chrome, Edge, Safari, Firefox).
*'''Inputs and outputs:''' describe what you did, what you expected to happen, and what actually happened.
*'''Reproduction steps:''' provide clear, step-by-step instructions so developers can replicate the bug.
*For general discussions or suggestions not related to bugs, please use the [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Moderators' noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs|Report a new bug]]</div>

*You will receive a response from [[User:JakeL]], who is contracted to provide professional support for this wiki in a production environment.
</div>
<br />
{{Archives}} 

==Wiki search engine indexing==

There are a couple of posts asking about search engine indexing of this wiki: [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard#Should CRW be indexed by search engines?]] and [[Talk:Main Page#Suggestion: Implementing a /robots.txt page]]. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 02:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

:We are currently looking into this and I will update the thread as and when we have a solution or any further news. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 00:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

==How do you edit beginning of an article with StubNotice?==

I was trying to edit the beginning of the article on [[Medical ventilator]] (to add a see also link to the medical equipment article).

The article has a StubNotice template at the beginning (on the same line as the beginning of the first paragraph).

When I try to save changes after making ANY change to the text on the same line as the stub notice template, it will not save (it gives me a message telling me about the procedure for requesting stubnotice removal). I am not trying to move or remove the stub notice, I didn't touch that. Even if all I try to do is put a newline or space after the template, or change words on the first line, it won't let me. This happens whether I use the visual editor or the source editor. I am using firefox running on linux.

I can save changes later on in that article, and I have edited other articles marked as stubs without issue.

The stubnotice documentation and talk page do not seem to document this behaviour, or tell me what to do. If this is desired behaviour, then the template should explain how to handle it.

Thank you. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 21:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

:Not a mod, but I think I can respond to this. You can’t and this is pretty much desired behaviour. The [[Special:AbuseFilter|Abuse filter]] is the reason for it. It does attack more than just that area too as it thinks you’re changing the notice. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
::I don't understand why this behavior would be desired. To me it seems like a bug, where the abuse filter is protecting more than it should.
::Regardless, how can we improve the lead paragraph when we can not change it?
::*Are we supposed to duplicate the immutable first paragraph, putting any revisions/improvements in a secondary copy of the first paragraph? Is there a standard template or way to document what is going on so it doesn't confuse readers when they see two first paragraphs?
::*Do we need to propose edits to the first paragraph in some form on the talk page, then request an administrator to come and actually make the change? (If so, how/where do we make the request?)
::*Are we expected to just ignore problems in the first paragraph, and revise the rest of it until the stub can be removed?
::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 01:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
::I wonder if this edit, where an administrator used the visual editor to delete a deletion tag after the stubnotice might be part of the problem. Prior to that edit, the stubnotice was on its own line. After that edit, the stubnotice is on the same line as the first paragraph.
::https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Shortage_of_medical_ventilators_during_the_COVID_pandemic&diff=prev&oldid=25186
::If the abuse filter intentionally protects everything on the stubnotice line, then the problem may be in the visual editor, which should ensure that it preserves the newline at the end of a protected line. (At the very least, it should warn an administrator when they are suddenly protecting a bunch of text that wasn't protected before.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I personally don’t like the current ‘stub notice can only be removed by mods’ anyway, and there are loads of article maintenance templates which '''don’t have this for some reason'''. Proposing edits in talk page is actually done on Wikipedia in the form of edit requests, where a mod will look at it there, but the thing is it won’t alert mods here to the request by just posting about it. The point about it protects the entire line seems valid to me and makes complete sense from my own experience, so I do think that is the most likely scenario. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
::::This is by design so that editors do not remove the notice until its been removed by staff for completeness. Once work on an article is completed you can post an appeal in the noticeboard or discord #appeals staff do actively check these so that peer edits can be approved and notices removed. This is both by policy and system design; it is not a bug. If you have thoughts on how we can improve this process feel free to bring it up in the dashboard - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 15:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::If this is desired behavior -- why? What purpose does it serve making it so the ''entire first paragraph'' of an article is ''immutable''?
:::::Note that the issue is the protection of the rest of the line, not the protection of the notice itself.
:::::@[[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] Sorry, I don't know where/what the dashboard is, please give me a link. In the meantime, I will post suggestions for improvement here. Thank you.
:::::How to improve it:
:::::*Fix the code, so that only the stubnotice template is protected, not the rest of the line.
:::::*Fix the code when submitting a change so that it ''always'' adds a newline immediately after a stubnotice (or other protected template) if there isn't one there.
:::::*When a moderator submits a change with anything on the same line as a protected template, (either by adding to it, or by deleting the newline at the end of the line) the software should issue a warning, telling them what this will do to everybody else and asking them to confirm that they really want to do that. (Make the warning simple, clear, blatant, something you have to type a response to so people will read it and not autoclick.)
:::::Temporary workarounds:
:::::Add cautionary notices to the stubnotice template and its documentation.
:::::*The documentation should explain this behavior, tell moderators what the intended use of protecting the rest of the line is, and warn moderators about the problems it can cause.
:::::*If the visual editor is part of the problem (as I suspect it may be, given the edit which caused the problem in this article), then the documentation should warn moderators to be especially careful when using it around stubnotices.
:::::*The template text should explain what is going on, so an editor encountering the problem for the first time knows what is happening, and what to do about it. (How to get help to fix this case.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 19:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just found that the template:incomplete has same problem. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 05:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::That part about the first paragraph being un-editable is not intended but the fact that users cannot edit the stub notice (or other notices) is created so someone cant just arbitrariliy edit their post removing the notices without staff review and formal appeal of the action by the user. As for where the dashboard is [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard]] here is a link to it. As for the rest of your concerns I will flag down one of the tech folks or Keith for you to provide a more detailed explaination or look into exactly why everything in a first paragraph is being locked down as if someone adds a stub notices it should be at the top and above all text so there should be a seperation between the article text and the stub notice. This might also just be a policy thing we need to discuss as the stub notice is working as intended but the text after it being locked is not. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 08:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==CAPTCHA appears only after pressing Add topic or any other similar main activity button clicked==

More of a suggestion, but it would be much better if CAPTCHA appeared if user made changes in all required fields/field. Less clicks to action - better UI, more engaged regular users. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 01:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

:What do you mean could you provide a more detailed explanation? That way the development team can actually look at this and see what’s possible. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
::Couldn't reproduce this issue in new design, you can dismiss it for now. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Numeric usernames in cites produce warnings==
Usernames allow a wide range of characters. When <code>|author=</code> is used, the warning should not exist. The numberic warning should still exist on <code>|last=</code> and <code>|first=</code>. Many pages in [[:Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list]] are false positives. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:2384:101:B34:3E7B:6AF4:18CF|2A00:23C8:2384:101:B34:3E7B:6AF4:18CF]] 16:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

==Broken pages==

Hello, there are some pages that were created by the maintenance script that are all a subpage of Broken. You can find them by going down [[special:contribs/Maintenance script|here]]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

:These pages don't even seem to be deletable. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

==Error when using " Random page " button==

I was just poking around at the website, until I've noticed a random page button, hit it once, worked fine, tried it another time and got this error : MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: [b1219b51071b190a6bd156cf] 2026-01-22 08:02:21: Fatal exception of type "MediaWiki\Exception\MWUnknownContentModelException"

Exception caught inside exception handler.

Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information. , this is the url: [[Broken/NS112:Profile:Facetedsearch default profile]]

[[Special:Contributions/86.120.52.41|86.120.52.41]] 08:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing this out! I'll pass it on to the technical guys. weird that it only failed the second time... [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
::T think the weird thing is you being sent to that page in the first place, rather than the fact that an error appeared when you were. i mashed ramdom page a few times and had no problem so i assume it's an issue with the list of pages it's choosing from. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Ok, this is the same issue as 'Broken pages' above, and is being worked on. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 12:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

==Consumerrights wiki not translatable via translate.google.com==

I wanted to share a page of this wiki with a Dutch-speal-king friend & Google Translate has this handy feature where you can drop a link, and it will generate a link with the webpage translated to your language of choice. Unfortunately, this feature doesn't seem to work for consumerrightswiki (returning a 403 Forbidden), limiting its reach to EN-only speakers. Is there any chance translate.google.com can be whitelisted?

This link is an example of translating the Microsoft_Windows page to Dutch: https://consumerrights-wiki.translate.goog/w/Microsoft_Windows?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=nl&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true

In DevTools:
[[File:Google Translate consumerrights.wiki failure.png|alt=Google Translate consumerrights.wiki failure|thumb|Google Translate consumerrights.wiki failure]]
[[User:Webketje|Webketje]] ([[User talk:Webketje|talk]]) 09:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:I tested it and am getting the same problem. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 10:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::this website isnt indexed by search engines, thats probably why this happens [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] That is not the issue; it is indexed by search engines (at least the main page). This is a server configuration issue, perhaps to do with X-Frame-Options or other headers [[User:Webketje|Webketje]] ([[User talk:Webketje|talk]]) 11:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

==Main Page error (Different)==

After answering the [https://cryptpad.fr/form/#/2/form/view/m7l6L13thN198p-PfvXPVM9mFE+K5ucpzYsGiS4pN-M/ survey on CryptPad], you get prompted to visit the Main Page. The link however, leads to https://consumerrights.wiki/Main_page, whereas the actual Main Page is https://consumerrights.wiki/Main_Page with a capital P. Should be as simple as adding a redirect for all capitalisation variants of "Main Page", to avoid this issue ever again, since no article will (or should) ever use the name Main Page, anyway. [[User:Sebandar|Sebandar]] ([[User talk:Sebandar|talk]]) 19:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:Created the redirect - thank you for bringing it up! (and sorry for the delayed response) [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

==Page tabs hidden==

Whatever the changes were has caused the first two tabs (article/project & talk) to now appear behind the site logo for CRW. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 00:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

:Please force clear your browser cache. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 00:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::I have force cleared the browser cache for Firefox v147.0.2. I used the "purge cache" under the "More" tab, and force-refreshed the page - didn't work. I had to change the appearance setting from "Vector legacy (2010)" to a something else for the affected tabs to appear. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 00:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for letting me know. Could you please use our default skin (Vector 2022) for now until I get around to this? I haven’t done any work to optimise the legacy theme yet, as most people are using the default theme, thanks again for bringing this to my attention! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 01:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Now fixed! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 21:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

==Main page header blues are low contrans, and don't meet WCAG AAA standards.==

<nowiki>#</nowiki>7FB6FF for links and #004080 for background are too close to each other. It is improvement over prevous conmination, but still not super accessible for color blind people. Blue and black themes are quite hard to make because both are dark colors. You can ping me here or in Discord if you want to discuss accessibility. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Header Icons in vector-header class header are changing to black in dark theme==

Icons like Alerts, Notices, Watchlist and Personal settings are switching to black when device is in dark theme. Tested in chrome and firefox, on Linux (ubuntu 24.04 LTS + KDE) and Mac. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Visited links on dark blue background doesnt meet WCAG accessibility standards==

<nowiki>#</nowiki>6a60b0 for link text on #1b223d has contrast of 2.91 which is way off for color blind people. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Class infobox blocks are shifting layout and moves parts of first entry in lists they are above==

Good example is Previous discussions block in this page. It has too low width or margins, so flex layout wraps first entry in list around it. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==w/Special:Preferences header has no background==

w/Special:Preferences has same header functions as other pages header, but has other styling [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 22:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Category:Wiki root subcategories with 1 article should be always in expanded state==

This will reduce amount of clicks to some articles and make user experience little touch better [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Width radio buttons in Appearance section of vector-sticky-pinned-container navbar does not change anything==

Tested in chrome and firefox, both Linux (ubuntu 24.04 lts + KDE) and Mac. Width radio buttons don't change anything in any page I opened to check it out. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==/Sandbox and /Sandbox/Welcome are redundant==

/Sandbox/Welcome is looking same and does absolutely same stuff as /Sandbox [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Ability to edit Main Page.css and Main Page/Portals in Special:UncategorizedPages is bit of security issue==

I'd consider hiding that pages or adding permissions required to edit them, as both can be used for malicious actions. WIth css it will be just okay, let's make this look like circus or unusable, but with Portals you can embed external links directly in them. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==vector-sticky-pinned-container navbar hide button pinning to static header is counterintuitive==

If you click on hide option, It creates just another button in static header, which is super confusing for those who have not a lot of technical knowledge [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:Same with tools being pinned to vector-menu-content-list [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==w/Special:Preferences ⧼prefs-reading⧽ key is not parsed==

This value is fallbacked as key name because it points to non existing entry [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Random page button occasionally sends you to Broken: pages==

Random page button occasionally sends you to broken pages like [[Broken/NS112:Group:Schema properties]] with no UI way to return back, only through browser buttons/instruments. [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:you can dismiss it, already pointed above. somehow missed this [[User:Banana|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana|talk]]) 23:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

== Please fix link to this page ('Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs') on 'Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index' page ==

Instead of linking here [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index]] has a link in the 'Special pages' section that incorrectly links to [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Bugs]]. [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Bugs]] showed up when I did a search for broken redirects. I tried to fix it, but I do not have the editing rights. I also tried to fix [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index]], but again I don't have the editing rights. (Both are protected pages. I'm not asking for access rights. I'm just asking for someone with access rights to fix this, so that people can find this page with a direct link to it.)

I can't work out why [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Bugs]] is showing up as a broken redirect, when the link after the redirect seems to point here OK, if I click on it manually. I could not do a test edit to see if I could clear the problem. But I think that the page does not need to exist.

I checked What Links Here on [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Bugs]] and there are only two pages that link to it. One is the page I just mentioned. The other is a user's talk page. So, if the 'Wiki policy index' page is fixed and the user's user page is fixed, the [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Bugs]] page can be deleted and navigation will be slightly easier for people trying to get to this page.

Thanks in advance to anyone with the correct access to fix this. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 03:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:CF Moto puts previously included features behind paywall

2025-09-04T06:41:05Z

Big Mac: /* Do we need some sort of "gaslighting rollback" category for this incident? */ new section

== Discussion ==

Things we need:

Screenshots and links to all locations that expresses that there is no subscription (before they get updated)

Communications with distributors [[User:Vleisbom|Vleisbom]] ([[User talk:Vleisbom|talk]]) 07:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

== Do we need some sort of "gaslighting rollback" category for this incident? ==

Looking at the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsoLdrcpFy0 Louis corrects CFMOTO misinformation; here's what really happened video], I'm wondering if we need to have some sort of "gaslighting rollback" category, to document instances where instead of companies admitting they did something the consumers didn't like and reversing their anti-ownership policy, they pretend that the policy never existed. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 06:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Big Mac

2025-09-02T12:30:26Z

Big Mac: User page added

I am a advocate for all sorts of rights for individuals, including rights for consumers. I live in the UK, but we now live in a world of global corporations, so when foreign corporations push their way into every country and take over the marketplace, we quite often all end up getting the exact same products as those sold in the USA. So in most cases I think we are all fighting the same sort of fight.

I have previous experience of editing on Wikipedia and several other Media Wiki wikis, but am by no means an expert. I do not claim to be an expert in consumer protection laws. I'm certainly not an expert in US laws. But there are a number of things on the wiki that are going to need simple clean-up jobs and someone is going to have to do that stuff. So if I do some of that stuff, it frees up someone with more knowledge to do something more useful.

== What Am I Interested In? ==
Issues of corporations abusing their powers, that I am not happy with include:

=== Agreements on Publishing Content Compatible with Commercial Roleplaying Games ===
Wizards of the Coast (owned by Hasbro) attempting to revoke their non-revokable Open Game Licence 1.0a, so that they could create a new version of the licence that would allow them to skim royalties off of the top of any Kickstarter campaigns that hit a $1 million dollars funding target.

This was an example of "changing the deal after it is made" on a free licence that encouraged other companies and one-man-band self-publishers to create content that was compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 3.0, D&D 3.5 and D&D 5.0. After a lot of pushback from consumers, WotC dropped their legal threats to block people from using OGL 1.0a, but then went on to release the new version of their System Reference Document under the Creative Commons Licence. (Creative Commons is a more open licence than the Open Game Licence was, but there are publishers that have gone out of business and designers who have since died who released "Open Game Content" under OGL 1.0a and the break in the chain of continuity has made it legally impossible to mix and match the content shared under the two different licences.)

In between 3rd Edition D&D and 5th Edition D&D, Wizards of the Coast also used another licence, called the Game System Licence to control the distrubution of content that was compatible with 4th Edition D&D. (This means there are three different pools of sharable content that are shared in three different safe harbour agreements and that which can not be mixed and matched.)

=== Corporate Think Tanks ===
Think tanks are organisations that do political research and suggest laws to politicians. Many think tanks are funded by corporations, by billionaires or by trust funds set up by rich people.

The issue I have with think tanks is that they get in between voters and politicians and the tell politicians what is good for voters. They quite often get funded by mystery money and they will offer perks to politicians. I view all think tanks with suspicion and believe that they should either be banned or at the very least, heavily scrutinised to ensure that there are not rich people in one country who are trying to secretly influence laws in another country, that will cause them to benefit financially.

=== Corporate Lobbying Against Renewable Energy and Electrified Railways ===
I believe the scientists who say that Climate Change actually exists and think that the best things we can do to reduce the carbon emissions our countries create is to force businesses to migrate away from fossil fuel to renewable energy as fast as the renewable energy can be made to be reliable.

Wind farms are an easy win, as are solar panels. Unlike with the harvesting of coal or oil, you do not have to burn and destroy what you harvest to get the energy. There are installation costs, there are maintenance costs and replacement costs, but if this was done in a responsible way, the cost to consumers could be reduced down to just the cost of maintaining the electricity grid and paying for teams of people who repair broken power lines. It wouldn't be totally free energy, but it could be a lot lot cheaper.

Another easy win is to build or upgrade passenger railways in cities and other areas that have a high number of commuters, so that some people who drive to work are able to choose to take a train to work instead. Every person who rides an electric train to work is one person less burning petrol / gasoline to commute, so that is a carbon emissions win and them not needing to drive also cleans up the air quality. And for the other motorists, if you can get some of the cars sharing the road with them to stay in the driveway of their owners, they are going to have less traffic on the way to and from work. So everyone can win, even if they need to drive into the city, because they have a van full of tools and work in different places.

However, there has been a lot of dark money used to campaign politically against green energy and railways. Elon Musk has been caught out telling someone that his Hyperloop White Paper was released to slow down the adoption of high-speed rail in the USA and the tactic worked.

I believe that the role of companies is to provide goods and services and that, when it comes to laws, a billionaire only gets one vote - the same as the rest of us - and should not be allowed to have more political influence than anyone else. Some of the things I'd push back on are likely to be beyond the scope of what Consumer Rights Wiki is here for and any opinions on this user page are mine only and do not represent Consumer Rights Wiki.

== Consumer Rights Issues I am Interested In ==
Issues that I think are more likely to be aligned with Consumer Rights Wiki include:

=== Stop Killing Games ===
A friend of mine pointed me at that campaign. I've not played a lot of video games and don't own any of the games affected by that, but I am a gamer and I value preservation of old games that come to the end of their supported life.

I am especially interested in the various different attempts that Ross Scott made to engage with different consumer protection organisations in different countries around the world. I think think that deconstructing Stop Killing Games and documenting the various consumer protection agencies, how they work and how large-scale consumer complaints can be put to those organisations would be valuable to Consumer Rights Wiki. (If, for example, a specific consumer issue, such as EULAs that prevent use of purchased goods, without the user agreeing to forced arbitration, could be fully documented on Consumer Rights Wiki, enough evidence could be gathered to copy things like the European Citizens' Initiative that Stop Killing Games supporters in the EU created.)

I don't think that Consumer Rights Wiki needs to go into too much detail, but if basic instructions for identifying who deals with stuff and how to complain to them in an effective way is on here somewhere, that might be useful for organising groups of people, within the Consumer Rights Wiki userbase, who wish to actually go beyond documenting abuse and move into campaign against the abuse. (I think this would be an extension of the parts of the wiki that deal with lawsuits that involve consumer rights. And it should be something that only covers the subject to a similar amount. For example, when an organisation that represents video game manufacturers in the European Union made a statement suggesting that Stop Killing Games was not a good thing, that could be used as evidence that the organisation attempts to gaslight consumer activists.)

=== Lock Manufacturing Companies Who Mislead Consumers Into Purchasing Insecure Locks ===
As well as watching videos from Louis Rossman, I also watch videos from a YouTuber called LockPickingLawyer. LockPickingLawyers videos are quite short, many of them feature lockpicking. Some of them feature historic locks. But some of his videos show modern locks, on sale today, where the locking mechanisms are critically flawed and criminals can easily defeat the lock. Some of these vulnerabilities include:

* '''Locks vulnerable to overlift attacks from comb picks:''' Lock cylinders usually have pairs of pins, with a matching key that lifts up the pins enough to line up the gap between them with the sheer-line. Without the key, a person trying to defeat the lock would normally have to pick each individual pin to line all of them up with the sheer-line. Comb picks were invented nearly 100 years ago and are used to lift both pairs of pins above the sheer-line, so that the comb pick can quickly be inserted and turned in the same time it takes to insert the correct key. Balanced pin stacks are used to prevent this attack.
* '''Locks vulnerable to bypass attacks:''' Most locks work (after the key is inserted) by the cylinder being turned and that turning motion pulling something that opens the lock. Some lock manufactures still make, import and sell locks that have a "hole" in the back of the keyway, that allows a would-be-criminal to push a tool through the keyway and turn it to open the lock. As with a comb pick overlift attack, this is very quick and can look very similar to an authorised person using the key, from a distance.
* '''Locks vulnerable to shim attacks:''' A lot of locks have a slope on them that allows people to close a padlock or a door, while the locking mechanism is in a closed position. A shimming attack is one that involves inserting a thin device into a lock that is already closed, to use this same slope to push back a spring-loaded lock so that it opens without the use of a key. It is possible to design padlocks in a way that prevents shim attacks, or to sell a door lock with door furniture that can be installed to cover over the gap in the door that allows tools to get behind the lock and shim it open.
* '''Locks vulnerable to rake attacks:''' A rake attack uses a device with a number of bumps that bounce the keypins in the lock up and down. The rake is pushed in and out of the lock quickly, while another device is used to put tension on the lock cylinder. Key pins in poorly designed locks can be knocked into the sheer line, with this sort of attack, allowing unskilled thieves who are not able to actually pick locks to break into homes.
* '''Locks vulnerable to bump attacks:''' A bump attack is an attack using a modified key blank, a special rubber band and a hammer. The key is hit with the hammer, while a tool is used to turn the key. The effect is similar to the effect of a rake attack, although it works slightly differently.

There are other flaws with locks out there, but these are five of the ones that LockPickingLawyer regularly highlights in locks that are being sold today. The packaging of critically flawed locks that LockPickingLawyer reviews often has words like "maximum security" or "pick proof" on them. Or locks are given ratings like "8 out of 10" for security. Locks are also marketing to the public based on how beefy they look, rather than by how good they are at doing their job (keeping out unauthorised users who do not have the key).

Companies selling locks often try to silence people who criticise the quality of their locks (or the ethical standards of lock manufacturers in general). They claim that people who educate people about flaws in locks are "helping criminals" and there is a legal case on Consumer Rights Wiki called [[Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally]], where a lock company used bogus copyright claims to get fair use videos debunking their locks removed from YouTube and two other platforms, before trying to use a lawsuit to ban the video creator from making future videos about their company.

Governments around the world should introduce laws making it illegal to manufacture, import or sell locks that have these critical flaws. Or at the very least, they should pass laws requiring labels that show if a lock is immune or vulnerable to these sort of attacks.

I would like to see an article similar to [[Louis Rossmann - Video Directory]], but one called "LockPickingLawyer - Video Directory", and I would like to see Louis reach out to LockPickingLawyer to ask if he can help send over some of his supporters, so that the videos showing flawed locks can be identified and used as the basis for Consumer Rights Wiki showing shoddy products being sold to consumers as "high security products". It is one thing for consumers to buy something cheap knowing that it is low quality, but it is another thing for consumers to be sold expensive locks and tricked into thinking the locks are actually good.

'''Bogus Copyright Claims on YouTube (and Other Platforms)'''

As part of it's responsibilities under the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] YouTube operates a system that allows the owners of copyrighted material to complain about YouTube content creators who steal their content. However Section 107 specifically requires anyone making a copyright claim to consider "fair use" before making a report to YouTube or another platform:<blockquote>
==== 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use<sup>40</sup> ====
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.</blockquote>Many owners of copyrighted material are wilfully misusing the DMCA law and ignoring their Section 107 responsibilities. The main two reasons for this are:

* A non-legal desire to get reviews or other fair use videos that feature their content removed from the Internet or
* An equally non-legal desire to hijack the YouTube royalties of someone making a fair use video.

An example of the first thing is included in the Proven Industries vs Trevor McNally legal case. I'm actually more concerned about the second thing.

YouTuber Rick Beato recently put out a video called [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBq_krhKbW4 This Record Label Is Trying To SILENCE Me] in the video he talks about how Universal Music Group's is using bogus copyright strikes to prey on YouTubers. He has been making fair-use educational videos that explain how songs work and the record label was using YouTube's system to take away his video royalties. In the end he got fed up and started to fight the royalty grab requests on fair use grounds, fought back and won every single time. But the royalty grab claims kept coming. He had to hire a lawyer to deal with the claims. He says he has personally had thousands of claims. And now Universal Music Group has switched to using copyright stikes, with three strikes getting his YouTube channel defeated. Another YouTuber, called Top Music Attorney has a video about this up, called [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0p0hYoWwWI This Record Label Is Trying To SILENCE Me | Lawyer Reacts To Rick Beato]. She is a music artist who went to law school to protect herself from being ripped off. She says she has lots of clients, who are musicians who have also been hit with bogus copyright claims.

The main thing that is wrong with how this system is this:

* If a ''YouTuber breaks the rules three times they can loose their YouTube channel'' but
* If a ''big company makes thousands of bogus copyright campaigns, there is no consequence''.

After loosing so many bogus claims to take Rick Beato's royalties, Universal Music Group must understand that they are misusing YouTube's royalty transfer system. They have now switched from doing that to requesting copyright strikes on every single old video they have not yet made a claim from. Rick Beato's lawyer must now spend a ton of time overturning these claims quickly, so that Rick's channel is not deleted. This is malicious misuse of the system.

Louis recently said he wanted to campaign against the DMCA (although he was concerned about a different bit being abused). I think that if ''Louis could team up with Rick Beato'' (who has previously lobbied for rights for musicians with US government officials) and if ''Louis could also team up with Top Music Attorney'', and if her clients are willing to publicly share details of bogus claims against them, a large number of instances of DMCA abuse could be added to Consumer Rights Wiki as evidence that the law does not function as intended and is being used to cause harm to people creating fair use videos.

If the DMCA is going to be reformed, rather than scrapped, companies who constantly make bogus claims against fair use videos should receive their own "DMCA misuse strikes" and be banned from making further copyright claims.

Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

2025-09-02T05:26:24Z

Big Mac: Adding "citation needed" where I've not found the citations yet. (The Runkle of the Baily videos covering this are hours long.)

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Needs the rebuttal included|Issue 2=Needs more "wiki voice" commentary on each claim}}

In 2025, [[Proven Industries]], a lock company, is attempting to sue Trevor McNally,<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=[[Proven Industries]] |date=May 1, 2025 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.1.0.pdf |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> a lockpicking expert on multiple social media platforms, for various questionable damages caused by the publishing of a currently delisted video demonstrating McNally picking the lock with a makeshift shim.

==Background==
In March 2025, Proven Industries published a video on Instagram, featuring their Latch Pin Lock<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Proven Industries > Latch Pin Lock |url=https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250211010616/https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |archive-date=2025-02-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Proven Industries}}</ref> and a Proven Industries staff member using a number of tools on the lock and stating that there was no way for anyone to bypass the lock. In the comments of that video a user by the name of gq_videos said "Let's introduce it to the @mcnallyoffical poke" someone at Proven Industries responded to that comment by posting: "lol those guys like the cheap locks lol because they are easy and fast".<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=DEFENDANT TREVOR MCNALLY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250611182806/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

On April 2025, Trevor McNally published a response video on [[YouTube]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's YouTube video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjzlmKz_MM8 |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> [[TikTok]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's TikTok post |url=https://www.tiktok.com/@mcnallyofficial/video/7489223700735118622 |url-status=live |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[TikTok]]}}</ref> [[Facebook]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's Facebook video |url=https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1ZicXjkyNb/ |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Facebook]]}}</ref> and [[Instagram]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's Instagram post |url=https://www.instagram.com/p/DIAH9vps19y/?hl=en |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Instagram]]}}</ref> intended to both educate and entertain users on the insecurity of the lock via the usage of a makeshift shim created out of a soda can. In response to McNally's video, [[Proven Industries]] submitted takedown requests of the videos on all of these platforms, and then soon after filed a lawsuit against McNally.<ref name=":0" />

Proven Industries posted a response video to McNally, called "Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market!" They did not name McNally, but the same staff member in their original video drank from a can of Liquid Death (the same drink McNally had used to create a lock shim).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market! |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/16nZqtT-1sI |url-status=live |website=YouTube}}</ref>However, they changed their strategy in June and asked the judge in the legal case to issue an emergency injunction to ban Trevor McNally from making any content about Proven Industries while the court case was progressing.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 10: PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250603165753/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |archive-date=2025-06-03 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
[[File:McNally Takedown.png|thumb|A screenshot taken from a taken down [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YjzlmKz_MM8 McNally video] displaying Proven Industries' copyright claim over the video]]

==Lawsuit==

===Claims===

#Copyright infringement Cited multiple times inside of the legal document,<ref name=":0" /> [[Proven Industries]] attempts to claim that McNally was not following fair use doctrine for the purposes of his video. Notably due to the takedown of McNally's content, Proven instead uses screenshots to demonstrate theft, seen in sections 27 and 29 of the document.
#Defamation
#False advertising [[Proven Industries]] claims that McNally falsely advertised the ease in bypassing the lock in sections 32-35,<ref name=":0" /> and directly claimed that McNally was acting childish to support these claims. Additionally in sections 36-40, Proven claims that McNally was doctoring the footage, as the shim was shown deformed through the video, despite how aluminum is capable of being easily deformed under stress.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Runkle Of The Bailey |date=Jun 5, 2025 |title=When Your Lock Is Bad, Sue? Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItSrtE-GHCc |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>
#Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) This claim was made despite the defendant living in Virginia.
#Torturous interference
#Unjust enrichment Covered in section 4 in the introduction:<blockquote>On information and belief, McNally is affiliated with and/or an agent of Covert Instruments (hereinafter "Covert"), a company that sells lock-picking tools. McNally lists Covert's website on his social media pages, and Covert Instruments' website features McNally and benefits from the misleading content McNally produces.</blockquote>This claim has been cited as questionable by consumers<ref name=":1" /> and the media considering the fact that the shim was made from an ordinary object rather than any product sold on the website.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=May 23, 2025 |title=They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQp5JcQwLA |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>
#Civil conspiracy
#Trade libel

Additionally, Proven attempted to file an emergency injunction against McNally<ref>{{Cite web |last=[[Proven Industries]] |date=Jun 2, 2025 |title=Preliminary Injunction |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> to prevent further posting about the flaws of their locks, called for within this injunction was emergency relief for damages that exclude engineering costs to resolve the lock's vulnerability, meaning if Proven Industries is to win this case, the company will neglect to resolve the flaws of the lock itself.

===Rebuttal===

#Trevor McNally's lawyers claimed that Section 107 of the Copyright Act<ref>{{Cite web |date=25-08-31 |title=107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use |url=https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250311190810/https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |archive-date=25-03-11 |access-date=25-08-31 |website=U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> allows fair use of copyrighted material for "criticism, comment, news reporting, [or] teaching" and that the video that the take down request was made on was covered by protected use on all four factors of the section.<ref name=":3" />
#His lawyers also claimed his video was transformative and that the portions he included were there to facilitate criticism.<ref name=":3" />
#The original Proven Industries was minimally creative and had already been published and McNally's reuse was minimal and integral to his criticism of the Latch Pin Lock.<ref name=":3" />
#McNally's use of extracts from Proven Industries video had no effect on Proven Industries, as there is no market for their video and people watching his video would not take away views of their video.<ref name=":3" />
#The defamation claims of Proven Industries would fail, as they were based on claims made against non-verbal acts, where Proven Industries didn't actually have any written statements to back up their claims that McNally was making false claims in his response video. (Essentially McNally never actually said Proven Industries was "dishonest or incompetent" and also never said their lock was "inherently untrustworthy.") McNally made a further video called "They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks" as a response to the claim that he had to disassemble the lock to create a bespoke shim and then reassemble it. In that video, he took a case of Liquid Death and opened an Amazon Locker and removed a boxed new Proven Industries Latch Pin Lock, drank the drink, cut up the can, created a shim and talked though how the shim process works.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=2025-08-31 |title=They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MbQp5JcQwLA |website=YouTube}}</ref>
#Proven Industries's tortious interference claims were invalid.<ref name=":3" />
#Public interest always favours supporting First Amendment rights.<ref name=":3" />

===Outcome===

#Trevor McNally's lawyers objected to Proven Industries's request for an emergency injunction against Trevor McNally and the request for an emergency injunction was denied.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 30: ORDER |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250625231154/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
#There were some blunders in the Proven Industries side of the legal case. These include:
##A witness said to be the Proven Industries lock expert not being able to explain to the judge if he was an employee of Proven Industries or another company and also admitting that he did learn how to shim the Latch Pin Lock after watching McNally's videos and practicing for a while. (This statement undermined the Proven Industries assertion that McNally had disassembled the lock and used trickery to make it appear that he had shimmed the lock. That assertion was the main thrust of their case against McNally.)<sup>[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']</sup>
##When asked about their process for making sure their locks were not vulnerable, the answer from a Proven Industries witness was that nobody calling their customer services department had complained that one of their locks had been opened up by a shim attack. (The average consumer would probably not be able to recognise a lock that had been opened by a shim attack. This answer also made it appear like Proven Industries did not engage people with the sort of skills that Trevor McNally has to test their own products to destruction and may have done more damage to their own reputation than McNally's videos.)<sup>[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']</sup>
##When asked, by the judge, about imported lock cylinders, a Proven Industries witness struggled to recall the details and had to estimate how many of their lock cylinders are imported from Europe and China.<sup>[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']</sup>
#Proven Industries submitted witness statements and included personal information about their witnesses (including a witness who had expressed concern about being names) without asking for their documents to be submitted under seal. They later complained to the judge that their staff were being harassed and suggested this was somehow McNally's fault. And they made a request to the judge to retro-actively put all the documents in the court case under seal. McNally's lawyers objected to this, citing that Proven Industries had boasted on social media that they were going to use the court case to reveal McNally as a fraud and had therefore created public interest in the case, when they thought it would benefit them. Ian Runkle (a Canadian lawyer who had been creating YouTube videos about the case) also submitted an objection to all the documents in the legal case being sealed. Runkle's objection was stricken from the record by the judge.<sup>[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']</sup>
#Proven Industries filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their case without prejudice. The copyright strikes against Trevor McNally have been lifted.

The Latch Pin Lock with the vulnerability to shim attacks is still on sale and no product recall has yet been issued.

In the aftermath of the case another lock company, called PacLock launched a legal case against Proven Industry, claiming that Ronald Lee, II of Proven Industries had committed perjury, due to Proven Industries making heavy use of the term "made in the USA" in their advertising material and then Ronald Lee, II admitting in the McNally case that they import large numbers of lock cylinders from outside the USA.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Pacific Lock Company v. Proven Industries, Inc. (8:25-cv-01887) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70841659/pacific-lock-company-v-proven-industries-inc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901010301/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70841659/pacific-lock-company-v-proven-industries-inc/ |archive-date=2025-09-01 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

==Consumer response==

Coverage on these legal proceedings from media outlets appear to look down upon [[Proven Industries]]' attempts to sue McNally.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Toohey |first=Ellsworth |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=Lock manufacturer files lawsuit against social media lock picker |url=https://boingboing.net/2025/06/03/lock-manufacturer-files-lawsuit-against-social-media-lock-picker.html |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Boing Boing}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Barnes |first=Erik |date=Jun 7, 2025 |title=Lockpicking YouTuber sued by the lock company he beat; his superb response rallied support |url=https://www.good.is/youtuber-beats-lock-company |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Good}}</ref>

From consumers, notably legal professional Runkle of the Bailey,<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Runkle of the Bailey |date=Jun 16, 2025 |title=Proven Takes An Early Loss In Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH1rzaMTvRE}}</ref> call out the questionable nature of each claim within the legal document.<ref name=":0" /> From the subreddit r/LockPickingLawyer, many users back McNally's response towards Proven.<ref>{{Cite web |last=u/habichuelacondulce |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=To stop a YouTuber exposing the padlock security flaw with lawsuit |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/LockPickingLawyer/comments/1l2o3tp/to_stop_a_youtuber_exposing_the_padlock_security/ |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref>

Trevor McNally's personal response from the legal proceedings started with a short and hastily shot short clip to disprove most claims shown in the document by picking the lock mere seconds after obtaining the lock.<ref name=":2" /> This has continued into a series of clips demonstrating other locks sold by [[Proven Industries]] being bypassed by McNally.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Proven Industries]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]

Category talk:Incidents

2025-09-01T19:51:59Z

Big Mac: Reply to "Do we need this category?"

== Do we need this category? ==

Everything on this wiki is an incident. [[User:Waldo|Waldo]] ([[User talk:Waldo|talk]]) 09:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Replied on user talk page. [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::: This is not true. There are things other than incidents on the wiki. So this category is needed. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 19:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Australia Competition and Consumer Act 2010

2025-09-01T19:47:20Z

Big Mac: Changing category from "Legislation" to "Australian legislation".

{{StubNotice}}

"The object of this Act is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection."

The Act is administered by
*Attorney-General's Department
*Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
*Department of Industry, Science and Resources
*Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts
*Department of the Treasury

Full text for the Act can be found at [https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/latest/text Federal Register of Legislation]

The ACL (Australian Consumer Law) is written in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACL Regulations are detailed rules in Parts 6 and 7 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010. They explain the ACL rules and give more details to make sure the law is clear. These regulations can be read at [https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B01420/latest/text Federal Register of Legislation]. These regulations are administered by the Department of Treasury.

[[Category:Australian legislation]]

Category:Australian legislation

2025-09-01T19:46:09Z

Big Mac: Creating category, so I can move article for Austrian law into it

This Category contains laws, legislation, and law-based campaigns that relate to [https://consumer.gov.au/about/australian-consumer-law consumer protection specific to Australia].

In Australia, there is one set of consumer laws (called Australian Consumer Law) that covers all Australian states and territories. State and territory consumer regulators enforce the law in their jurisdiction.

Australia-wide regulators include:

* Australian Competition Consumer Commission and
* Australian Securities and Investments Commission

[[Category:Legislation in Oceania]]

Talk:Implementation of the UK Online Safety Act

2025-09-01T19:29:18Z

Big Mac: Big Mac moved page Talk:Implementation of the UK Online Safety Act to Talk:UK Online Safety Act: Pages for other laws on Consumer Rights Wiki just use the name of the law and do not feature "Implementation of the " at the start of the title.

#REDIRECT [[Talk:UK Online Safety Act]]

Talk:UK Online Safety Act

2025-09-01T19:29:18Z

==The Online Safety Act is a Conspiracy==

The Youtuber Cyber Waffle has been speaking with an MP and is working on setting up an interview. He goes over some things this MP told him in his video entitled "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAeEK_OMRso&t=301s The Online Safety Act is a Conspiracy]."

It would be great for the wiki to independently verify these claims that are made in the video for inclusion in this article. There are mentions of some damning things about Carnegie UK and profiting off of biometrics and identity confirmation systems. If verified and referenced, we could include articles on Carnegie and the third party identity verification companies to paint a broader picture.

[[User:LegislationRepair|LegislationRepair]] ([[User talk:LegislationRepair|talk]]) 16:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

==The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages.==

The legislation documents are very long and changes between versions are not easy to find. It would be great if someone has the time to comb through the different revisions and find where the identity verification was added. So far the only source for this info is what the Youtuber said the MP told him. There will hopefully be an interview with this MP so we can quote them directly but finding the source in the legislation would be best. [[User:LegislationRepair|LegislationRepair]] ([[User talk:LegislationRepair|talk]]) 17:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

==Comments==

The main comment I wanted to make was on the use of red links. Generally, red links should be used only where it is:

#expected that a page on the topic would be appropriate for the wiki, and
#a Wikipedia page does not exist for the relavent entity

If a reader is looking for additonal context about an involved entity, it will usually be more helpful to point them towards the relevant wikipedia page than to provide them with a red link here.

Other than that, I feel like Theo's section may be given undue weight? there's been an awful lot of commentary on the act out there so it should be possible to find more/better sources which make similar points but are more reputable.

It also probably needs some information explaining the different 'classes' that websites can be sorted into based on their size, content, and features, and how the requirements differ based on that. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 11:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

:Good call. I've remove the red links since anyone can come in and link a related article once it exists.
:I've read a lot of articles and watched a lot of videos on the Online Safety Act and its implications and haven't found anything that has broken down the duty of care like Theo. It would definitely be better for the article if someone found a better (written) source that cover the broader impacts of getting these things wrong. I believe the privacy and monitoring implications of this bill are what makes it most relevant to this wiki.
:Outlining the three different classes of websites outlined by the act is also a great idea.
:Thanks Keith! [[User:LegislationRepair|LegislationRepair]] ([[User talk:LegislationRepair|talk]]) 12:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

UK Online Safety Act

2025-09-01T19:29:17Z

Big Mac: Big Mac moved page Implementation of the UK Online Safety Act to UK Online Safety Act over redirect: Pages for other laws on Consumer Rights Wiki just use the name of the law and do not feature "Implementation of the " at the start of the title.

{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant. Another duty filters non-verified users from interacting with content made from an "adult user" ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-15-10 Section 15.10])<ref name="rossmann:1">{{Cite web|date=August 1, 2025|last=Rossmann |first=Louis |title=Tea app & UK Online Safety Act - the world is becoming a black mirror episode :(| url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNNsCuEvR5w&t=114 |ref=rossmann:1 |website=[[YouTube]] |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref>. These non-verified users will also be less visible, provided the adult user has toggled it.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications (Ofcom). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by Ofcom of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by Carnegie UK, working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by William Perrin and Professor Lorna Woods, outlining the proposal for social media regulation.<ref>{{Cite web |date=25-09-01 |title=Tackling Online Harms |url=https://carnegieuk.org/programmes/online-harms/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225063325/https://carnegieuk.org/programmes/online-harms/ |archive-date=2025-12-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref> The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Sim |first=Kate |date=August 7, 2025| title=The Online Safety Act Has Nothing to Do With Child Safety and Everything to Do With Censorship| url=https://novaramedia.com/2025/08/07/the-online-safety-act-has-nothing-to-do-with-child-safety-and-everything-to-do-with-censorship/ |website=Novara Media |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by Michelle Donelan, the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under Kier Starmer's Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[https://avpassociation.com/ Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA)] was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that Ofcom deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk].

The broad range of the act has caused content from breaking news,<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Koopman |first=Saskia |date=August 13, 2025 |title=Why the Online Safety Act has become a political nightmare |url=https://www.cityam.com/why-labours-online-safety-act-has-become-a-political-nightmare/ |website=City AM |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> war footages,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maiberg |first=Emanuel |date=July 29, 2025 |title=UK Users Need to Post Selfie or Photo ID to View Reddit's r/IsraelCrimes, r/UkraineWarFootage |url=https://www.404media.co/uk-users-need-to-post-selfie-or-photo-id-to-view-reddits-r-israelcrimes-r-ukrainewarfootage/ |website=404 Media |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> and political videos<ref name=":6" /> to be heavily suppressed and labelled "harmful".

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, only ID verification can correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

===4Chan===
4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images.

====Ofcom's investigation====
On 14 April 2025, Ofcom issued a formal information notice to the provider of the service 4chan requesting a copy of the record of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment, as part of the [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme-to-monitor-if-services-meet-their-illegal-content-risk-assessment-and-record-keeping-duties-under-the-online-safety-act-2023 Risk Assessment Enforcement Programme]. At the date of opening this investigation, no response has been received to the information notice. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-13 |title=Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users from illegal content |url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250615131417/https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-date=2025-06-15 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Ofcom}}</ref>

On 10 June 2025, Ofcom opened an investigation into "the online discussion board" 4chan. The investigation will consider 4chan's compliance with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Ofcom has powers under [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-102-8 section 102(8)] of the Act to require persons to respond to an information notice in the manner and form specified.

On 13 August 2025, Ofcom, in accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention, believing they had reasonable grounds for believing 4chan has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply (Ofcom.org appears to have blocked Archive.org from this and other pages sometime in July 2025).

====4chan's response====
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation.

The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref>

Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
According to analysis by Cloudwards, [[Google]] searches for "how to get around age verification" and "is VPN legal in the UK" saw a massive growth of over 450 thousand and 380 thousand percent respectively.<ref name=":5" /> United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is a website which was created in response to the Act's implementation and is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
[https://use-their-id.com/ Use Their ID.com] is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==
The act has been [https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/uk-online-safety-act/ opposed] as early as December 2023 by Internet Society.

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if the internet community doesn't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but believes that it is a really important thing that the community jump in front of.

The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves. The act also shifts the responsibility of child safety to the government, who in turn shift it to the websites, who in turn shift it to a brand new identity and age verification industry.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister Peter Kyle said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}


[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-09-01T19:26:27Z

Big Mac: Adding a citation to Carniegie UK Trust

Talk:Online Safety Act

2025-09-01T19:06:46Z

Big Mac: /* Time to start moving content from this article to the Implementation of the UK Online Safety Act article */ new section

== Time to start moving content from this article to the Implementation of the UK Online Safety Act article ==

The [[Implementation of the UK Online Safety Act]] article is in a much better condition than this article.

This article is full of "citation needed" notices and the other article has citations. I think this article should actually be deleted and the other article renamed to get rid of "Implementation of the" which is kind of pointless. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 19:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

2025-09-01T01:09:07Z

Big Mac: Outcome of legal case written up. (I need to try to find the citations for this and get the names of the two key Proven Industries witnesses. One was Ronald Lee, II, who is now being sued for purjury by PacLock over his testimony in the McNally case.

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Needs the rebuttal included|Issue 2=Needs more "wiki voice" commentary on each claim}}

In 2025, [[Proven Industries]], a lock company, is attempting to sue Trevor McNally,<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=[[Proven Industries]] |date=May 1, 2025 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.1.0.pdf |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> a lockpicking expert on multiple social media platforms, for various questionable damages caused by the publishing of a currently delisted video demonstrating McNally picking the lock with a makeshift shim.

==Background==
In March 2025, Proven Industries published a video on Instagram, featuring their Latch Pin Lock<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Proven Industries > Latch Pin Lock |url=https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250211010616/https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |archive-date=2025-02-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Proven Industries}}</ref> and a Proven Industries staff member using a number of tools on the lock and stating that there was no way for anyone to bypass the lock. In the comments of that video a user by the name of gq_videos said "Let's introduce it to the @mcnallyoffical poke" someone at Proven Industries responded to that comment by posting: "lol those guys like the cheap locks lol because they are easy and fast".<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=DEFENDANT TREVOR MCNALLY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250611182806/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

On April 2025, Trevor McNally published a response video on [[YouTube]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's YouTube video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjzlmKz_MM8 |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> [[TikTok]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's TikTok post |url=https://www.tiktok.com/@mcnallyofficial/video/7489223700735118622 |url-status=live |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[TikTok]]}}</ref> [[Facebook]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's Facebook video |url=https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1ZicXjkyNb/ |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Facebook]]}}</ref> and [[Instagram]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's Instagram post |url=https://www.instagram.com/p/DIAH9vps19y/?hl=en |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Instagram]]}}</ref> intended to both educate and entertain users on the insecurity of the lock via the usage of a makeshift shim created out of a soda can. In response to McNally's video, [[Proven Industries]] submitted takedown requests of the videos on all of these platforms, and then soon after filed a lawsuit against McNally.<ref name=":0" />

Proven Industries posted a response video to McNally, called "Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market!" They did not name McNally, but the same staff member in their original video drank from a can of Liquid Death (the same drink McNally had used to create a lock shim).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market! |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/16nZqtT-1sI |url-status=live |website=YouTube}}</ref>However, they changed their strategy in June and asked the judge in the legal case to issue an emergency injunction to ban Trevor McNally from making any content about Proven Industries while the court case was progressing.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 10: PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250603165753/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |archive-date=2025-06-03 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
[[File:McNally Takedown.png|thumb|A screenshot taken from a taken down [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YjzlmKz_MM8 McNally video] displaying Proven Industries' copyright claim over the video]]

==Lawsuit==

===Claims===

#Copyright infringement Cited multiple times inside of the legal document,<ref name=":0" /> [[Proven Industries]] attempts to claim that McNally was not following fair use doctrine for the purposes of his video. Notably due to the takedown of McNally's content, Proven instead uses screenshots to demonstrate theft, seen in sections 27 and 29 of the document.
#Defamation
#False advertising [[Proven Industries]] claims that McNally falsely advertised the ease in bypassing the lock in sections 32-35,<ref name=":0" /> and directly claimed that McNally was acting childish to support these claims. Additionally in sections 36-40, Proven claims that McNally was doctoring the footage, as the shim was shown deformed through the video, despite how aluminum is capable of being easily deformed under stress.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Runkle Of The Bailey |date=Jun 5, 2025 |title=When Your Lock Is Bad, Sue? Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItSrtE-GHCc |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>
#Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) This claim was made despite the defendant living in Virginia.
#Torturous interference
#Unjust enrichment Covered in section 4 in the introduction:<blockquote>On information and belief, McNally is affiliated with and/or an agent of Covert Instruments (hereinafter "Covert"), a company that sells lock-picking tools. McNally lists Covert's website on his social media pages, and Covert Instruments' website features McNally and benefits from the misleading content McNally produces.</blockquote>This claim has been cited as questionable by consumers<ref name=":1" /> and the media considering the fact that the shim was made from an ordinary object rather than any product sold on the website.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=May 23, 2025 |title=They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQp5JcQwLA |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>
#Civil conspiracy
#Trade libel

Additionally, Proven attempted to file an emergency injunction against McNally<ref>{{Cite web |last=[[Proven Industries]] |date=Jun 2, 2025 |title=Preliminary Injunction |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> to prevent further posting about the flaws of their locks, called for within this injunction was emergency relief for damages that exclude engineering costs to resolve the lock's vulnerability, meaning if Proven Industries is to win this case, the company will neglect to resolve the flaws of the lock itself.

===Rebuttal===

#Trevor McNally's lawyers claimed that Section 107 of the Copyright Act<ref>{{Cite web |date=25-08-31 |title=107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use |url=https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250311190810/https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |archive-date=25-03-11 |access-date=25-08-31 |website=U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> allows fair use of copyrighted material for "criticism, comment, news reporting, [or] teaching" and that the video that the take down request was made on was covered by protected use on all four factors of the section.<ref name=":3" />
#His lawyers also claimed his video was transformative and that the portions he included were there to facilitate criticism.<ref name=":3" />
#The original Proven Industries was minimally creative and had already been published and McNally's reuse was minimal and integral to his criticism of the Latch Pin Lock.<ref name=":3" />
#McNally's use of extracts from Proven Industries video had no effect on Proven Industries, as there is no market for their video and people watching his video would not take away views of their video.<ref name=":3" />
#The defamation claims of Proven Industries would fail, as they were based on claims made against non-verbal acts, where Proven Industries didn't actually have any written statements to back up their claims that McNally was making false claims in his response video. (Essentially McNally never actually said Proven Industries was "dishonest or incompetent" and also never said their lock was "inherently untrustworthy.") McNally made a further video called "They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks" as a response to the claim that he had to disassemble the lock to create a bespoke shim and then reassemble it. In that video, he took a case of Liquid Death and opened an Amazon Locker and removed a boxed new Proven Industries Latch Pin Lock, drank the drink, cut up the can, created a shim and talked though how the shim process works.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=2025-08-31 |title=They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MbQp5JcQwLA |website=YouTube}}</ref>
#Proven Industries's tortious interference claims were invalid.<ref name=":3" />
#Public interest always favours supporting First Amendment rights.<ref name=":3" />

===Outcome===

#Trevor McNally's lawyers objected to Proven Industries's request for an emergency injunction against Trevor McNally and the request for an emergency injunction was denied.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 30: ORDER |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250625231154/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
#There were some blunders in the Proven Industries side of the legal case. These include:
##A witness said to be the Proven Industries lock expert not being able to explain to the judge if he was an employee of Proven Industries or another company and also admitting that he did learn how to shim the Latch Pin Lock after watching McNally's videos and practicing for a while. (This statement undermined the Proven Industries assertion that McNally had disassembled the lock and used trickery to make it appear that he had shimmed the lock. That assertion was the main thrust of their case against McNally.)
##When asked about their process for making sure their locks were not vulnerable, the answer from a Proven Industries witness was that nobody calling their customer services department had complained that one of their locks had been opened up by a shim attack. (The average consumer would probably not be able to recognise a lock that had been opened by a shim attack. This answer also made it appear like Proven Industries did not engage people with the sort of skills that Trevor McNally has to test their own products to destruction and may have done more damage to their own reputation than McNally's videos.)
##When asked, by the judge, about imported lock cylinders, a Proven Industries witness struggled to recall the details and had to estimate how many of their lock cylinders are imported from Europe and China.
#Proven Industries submitted witness statements and included personal information about their witnesses (including a witness who had expressed concern about being names) without asking for their documents to be submitted under seal. They later complained to the judge that their staff were being harassed and suggested this was somehow McNally's fault. And they made a request to the judge to retro-actively put all the documents in the court case under seal. McNally's lawyers objected to this, citing that Proven Industries had boasted on social media that they were going to use the court case to reveal McNally as a fraud and had therefore created public interest in the case, when they thought it would benefit them. Ian Runkle (a Canadian lawyer who had been creating YouTube videos about the case) also submitted an objection to all the documents in the legal case being sealed. Runkle's objection was stricken from the record by the judge.
#Proven Industries filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their case without prejudice. The copyright strikes against Trevor McNally have been lifted.

The Latch Pin Lock with the vulnerability to shim attacks is still on sale and no product recall has yet been issued.

In the aftermath of the case another lock company, called PacLock launched a legal case against Proven Industry, claiming that Ronald Lee, II of Proven Industries had committed perjury, due to Proven Industries making heavy use of the term "made in the USA" in their advertising material and then Ronald Lee, II admitting in the McNally case that they import large numbers of lock cylinders from outside the USA.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Pacific Lock Company v. Proven Industries, Inc. (8:25-cv-01887) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70841659/pacific-lock-company-v-proven-industries-inc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901010301/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70841659/pacific-lock-company-v-proven-industries-inc/ |archive-date=2025-09-01 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

==Consumer response==

Coverage on these legal proceedings from media outlets appear to look down upon [[Proven Industries]]' attempts to sue McNally.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Toohey |first=Ellsworth |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=Lock manufacturer files lawsuit against social media lock picker |url=https://boingboing.net/2025/06/03/lock-manufacturer-files-lawsuit-against-social-media-lock-picker.html |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Boing Boing}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Barnes |first=Erik |date=Jun 7, 2025 |title=Lockpicking YouTuber sued by the lock company he beat; his superb response rallied support |url=https://www.good.is/youtuber-beats-lock-company |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Good}}</ref>

From consumers, notably legal professional Runkle of the Bailey,<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Runkle of the Bailey |date=Jun 16, 2025 |title=Proven Takes An Early Loss In Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH1rzaMTvRE}}</ref> call out the questionable nature of each claim within the legal document.<ref name=":0" /> From the subreddit r/LockPickingLawyer, many users back McNally's response towards Proven.<ref>{{Cite web |last=u/habichuelacondulce |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=To stop a YouTuber exposing the padlock security flaw with lawsuit |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/LockPickingLawyer/comments/1l2o3tp/to_stop_a_youtuber_exposing_the_padlock_security/ |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref>

Trevor McNally's personal response from the legal proceedings started with a short and hastily shot short clip to disprove most claims shown in the document by picking the lock mere seconds after obtaining the lock.<ref name=":2" /> This has continued into a series of clips demonstrating other locks sold by [[Proven Industries]] being bypassed by McNally.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Proven Industries]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]

Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

2025-08-31T22:36:23Z

Big Mac: Information about Proven Industries initially "joining in with McNally" and then trying to get an emergency injunction against him added to Background section

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Needs the rebuttal included|Issue 2=Needs more "wiki voice" commentary on each claim}}

In 2025, [[Proven Industries]], a lock company, is attempting to sue Trevor McNally,<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=[[Proven Industries]] |date=May 1, 2025 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.1.0.pdf |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> a lockpicking expert on multiple social media platforms, for various questionable damages caused by the publishing of a currently delisted video demonstrating McNally picking the lock with a makeshift shim.

==Background==
In March 2025, Proven Industries published a video on Instagram, featuring their Latch Pin Lock<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Proven Industries > Latch Pin Lock |url=https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250211010616/https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |archive-date=2025-02-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Proven Industries}}</ref> and a Proven Industries staff member using a number of tools on the lock and stating that there was no way for anyone to bypass the lock. In the comments of that video a user by the name of gq_videos said "Let's introduce it to the @mcnallyoffical poke" someone at Proven Industries responded to that comment by posting: "lol those guys like the cheap locks lol because they are easy and fast".<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=DEFENDANT TREVOR MCNALLY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250611182806/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

On April 2025, Trevor McNally published a response video on [[YouTube]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's YouTube video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjzlmKz_MM8 |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> [[TikTok]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's TikTok post |url=https://www.tiktok.com/@mcnallyofficial/video/7489223700735118622 |url-status=live |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[TikTok]]}}</ref> [[Facebook]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's Facebook video |url=https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1ZicXjkyNb/ |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Facebook]]}}</ref> and [[Instagram]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=Apr 3, 2025 |title=McNally's Instagram post |url=https://www.instagram.com/p/DIAH9vps19y/?hl=en |url-status=dead |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Instagram]]}}</ref> intended to both educate and entertain users on the insecurity of the lock via the usage of a makeshift shim created out of a soda can. In response to McNally's video, [[Proven Industries]] submitted takedown requests of the videos on all of these platforms, and then soon after filed a lawsuit against McNally.<ref name=":0" />

Proven Industries posted a response video to McNally, called "Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market!" They did not name McNally, but the same staff member in their original video drank from a can of Liquid Death (the same drink McNally had used to create a lock shim).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market! |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/16nZqtT-1sI |url-status=live |website=YouTube}}</ref>However, they changed their strategy in June and asked the judge in the legal case to issue an emergency injunction to ban Trevor McNally from making any content about Proven Industries while the court case was progressing.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 10: PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250603165753/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |archive-date=2025-06-03 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
[[File:McNally Takedown.png|thumb|A screenshot taken from a taken down [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YjzlmKz_MM8 McNally video] displaying Proven Industries' copyright claim over the video]]

==Lawsuit==

===Claims===

#Copyright infringement Cited multiple times inside of the legal document,<ref name=":0" /> [[Proven Industries]] attempts to claim that McNally was not following fair use doctrine for the purposes of his video. Notably due to the takedown of McNally's content, Proven instead uses screenshots to demonstrate theft, seen in sections 27 and 29 of the document.
#Defamation
#False advertising [[Proven Industries]] claims that McNally falsely advertised the ease in bypassing the lock in sections 32-35,<ref name=":0" /> and directly claimed that McNally was acting childish to support these claims. Additionally in sections 36-40, Proven claims that McNally was doctoring the footage, as the shim was shown deformed through the video, despite how aluminum is capable of being easily deformed under stress.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Runkle Of The Bailey |date=Jun 5, 2025 |title=When Your Lock Is Bad, Sue? Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItSrtE-GHCc |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>
#Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) This claim was made despite the defendant living in Virginia.
#Torturous interference
#Unjust enrichment Covered in section 4 in the introduction:<blockquote>On information and belief, McNally is affiliated with and/or an agent of Covert Instruments (hereinafter "Covert"), a company that sells lock-picking tools. McNally lists Covert's website on his social media pages, and Covert Instruments' website features McNally and benefits from the misleading content McNally produces.</blockquote>This claim has been cited as questionable by consumers<ref name=":1" /> and the media considering the fact that the shim was made from an ordinary object rather than any product sold on the website.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=May 23, 2025 |title=They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQp5JcQwLA |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>
#Civil conspiracy
#Trade libel

Additionally, Proven attempted to file an emergency injunction against McNally<ref>{{Cite web |last=[[Proven Industries]] |date=Jun 2, 2025 |title=Preliminary Injunction |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> to prevent further posting about the flaws of their locks, called for within this injunction was emergency relief for damages that exclude engineering costs to resolve the lock's vulnerability, meaning if Proven Industries is to win this case, the company will neglect to resolve the flaws of the lock itself.

===Rebuttal===

#Trevor McNally's lawyers claimed that Section 107 of the Copyright Act<ref>{{Cite web |date=25-08-31 |title=107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use |url=https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250311190810/https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |archive-date=25-03-11 |access-date=25-08-31 |website=U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> allows fair use of copyrighted material for "criticism, comment, news reporting, [or] teaching" and that the video that the take down request was made on was covered by protected use on all four factors of the section.<ref name=":3" />
#His lawyers also claimed his video was transformative and that the portions he included were there to facilitate criticism.<ref name=":3" />
#The original Proven Industries was minimally creative and had already been published and McNally's reuse was minimal and integral to his criticism of the Latch Pin Lock.<ref name=":3" />
#McNally's use of extracts from Proven Industries video had no effect on Proven Industries, as there is no market for their video and people watching his video would not take away views of their video.<ref name=":3" />
#The defamation claims of Proven Industries would fail, as they were based on claims made against non-verbal acts, where Proven Industries didn't actually have any written statements to back up their claims that McNally was making false claims in his response video. (Essentially McNally never actually said Proven Industries was "dishonest or incompetent" and also never said their lock was "inherently untrustworthy.") McNally made a further video called "They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks" as a response to the claim that he had to disassemble the lock to create a bespoke shim and then reassemble it. In that video, he took a case of Liquid Death and opened an Amazon Locker and removed a boxed new Proven Industries Latch Pin Lock, drank the drink, cut up the can, created a shim and talked though how the shim process works.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McNally |first=Trevor |date=2025-08-31 |title=They called me out…now they’re suing me. Proven Locks |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MbQp5JcQwLA |website=YouTube}}</ref>
#Proven Industries's tortious interference claims were invalid.<ref name=":3" />
#Public interest always favours supporting First Ammendment rights.<ref name=":3" />

==Consumer response==

Coverage on these legal proceedings from media outlets appear to look down upon [[Proven Industries]]' attempts to sue McNally.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Toohey |first=Ellsworth |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=Lock manufacturer files lawsuit against social media lock picker |url=https://boingboing.net/2025/06/03/lock-manufacturer-files-lawsuit-against-social-media-lock-picker.html |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Boing Boing}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Barnes |first=Erik |date=Jun 7, 2025 |title=Lockpicking YouTuber sued by the lock company he beat; his superb response rallied support |url=https://www.good.is/youtuber-beats-lock-company |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Good}}</ref>

From consumers, notably legal professional Runkle of the Bailey,<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Runkle of the Bailey |date=Jun 16, 2025 |title=Proven Takes An Early Loss In Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH1rzaMTvRE}}</ref> call out the questionable nature of each claim within the legal document.<ref name=":0" /> From the subreddit r/LockPickingLawyer, many users back McNally's response towards Proven.<ref>{{Cite web |last=u/habichuelacondulce |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=To stop a YouTuber exposing the padlock security flaw with lawsuit |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/LockPickingLawyer/comments/1l2o3tp/to_stop_a_youtuber_exposing_the_padlock_security/ |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref>

Trevor McNally's personal response from the legal proceedings started with a short and hastily shot short clip to disprove most claims shown in the document by picking the lock mere seconds after obtaining the lock.<ref name=":2" /> This has continued into a series of clips demonstrating other locks sold by [[Proven Industries]] being bypassed by McNally.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Proven Industries]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]

Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

2025-08-31T19:42:21Z

Big Mac: Format fix

Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

2025-08-31T19:40:55Z

Big Mac: Rebuttal section expanded out and "This section is incomplete." notice removed

Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

2025-08-31T17:43:04Z

Big Mac: Amending Background section to clarify that Proven Industries laughed at the idea of Trevor McNally being able to open their lock, and that McNally's video was made as a response to their video, the comment on their video and the reply by Proven Industries.

Talk:Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

2025-08-31T16:13:33Z

Big Mac: /* $130 lock bypassed with can - Proven Industries video now back on YouTube */ new section

== Coverage on this incident ==

Runkle of the Bailey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItSrtE-GHCc Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH1rzaMTvRE Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yFyaDRmR8 Part 3 [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 07:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

== $130 lock bypassed with can - Proven Industries video now back on YouTube ==

I don't know how long the [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YjzlmKz_MM8 $130 lock bypassed with can - Proven Industries] video was taken down by YouTube for, but the copyright strike has been removed and the video is back up on YouTube.

So the section of the article that states that the video has been taken down needs to be updated to say something along the lines of

"Proven Industries misused the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] to issue a bogus copyright strike on the [https://www.youtube.com/@McNallyOfficial/shorts @McNallyOfficial] channel, when McNally had fair use grounds to include a clip from their video to show a Proven Industries staff member say that there was no way for the lock to be quickly bypassed and also had fair use grounds to include a comment on their video that read: 'Let's introduce it to the @mcnallyoffical poke' and a reply by the provenlocks account that read: 'lol those guys like the cheap locks lol because they are easy and fast'."

Essentially the story here is that a YouTube viewer disputed Proven Industries claim that the lock could not be quickly bypassed, said they wanted to see McNally try the lock and Proven Industries claimed that he was unable to bypass locks of the sort of quality that they make. McNally took that as a personal challenge, so made a video showing how easy it was to shim their lock.

Instead of actually modifying the design of their lock to block this type of shim attack, Proven Industries chose to keep up their own video, that misinformed customers and attempt to silence McNally.

I'm not sure exactly where the law covering copyright (in the USA) and the DMCA says this. It might be section 512g, but I'm having problems finding a citiation for it. However anyone making a DMCA take down claim is required to specifically consider if the person who's content they are complaining about has fair use reason for using their work, or part of their work. There are a lot of companies that are now misusing the YouTube copyright claim system to issue bogus copyright claims on fair use videos.

(This was Proven Industries' first attempt to silence McNally. They then launched the lawsuit and put out publicity material claiming that McNally fakes his videos and said they were going to expose him as a liar in court. But I'm going off the exact topic now, which is that this video was taken down by a bogus copyright claim that has been overturned or withdrawn.)

If anyone knows how to work out when YouTube videos get taken down and then restored, it might be useful to have citations for that in the article. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 16:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Netgate

2025-08-15T13:00:17Z

Big Mac: " Category:Networking hardware companies" added to article

[[Netgate]]

[[Category:Networking hardware companies]]

Category:False Advertising

2025-08-15T03:47:08Z

Big Mac: "Category:Anti-Consumer Practices" added

''The main article for this category is [[False advertising]]''

[[Category:Anti-Consumer Practices]]

Category:Google Gemini

2025-08-15T03:43:04Z

Big Mac: "Category: Google" added

[[Category:Google]]

Category:Google Gemini

2025-08-15T03:41:33Z

Big Mac: Removing "Google Gemini" from article, as it was added in error (that article is also included in this category).

Category:McAfee

2025-08-15T03:22:14Z

Big Mac: Copying categories from " Category:Malwarebytes Inc."

[[Category:Computer security companies]]
[[Category:Technology companies]]
[[Category:Software companies]]

Category:McAfee

2025-08-15T03:19:14Z

Big Mac: Removing "Forced software agreement on new HP PC" from article, as it was added in error (that article is also included in this category).

User talk:Big Mac

2025-08-12T16:29:06Z

Big Mac: Answer to comment on my talk page

== Categorization ==

Hi, welcome to the wiki. Thanks for picking up the categorization problem. As stated in the categorization page ([[Consumer Rights Wiki:Categorization]]), there's no need to create new categories to describe an incident, you can just use the ones that have already been created! [[User:Emanuele|ema]] ([[User talk:Emanuele|talk]]) 12:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for enabling my account and for the welcome Emanuele. I got rid of all the double-redirects first and I'm trying to find things that are easy enough for a noob to be able to do to without the risk of a cock-up. I saw a few other things (via Special Pages searches) that may or may not be wrong, but I'm staying away from the complex stuff for now and trying to group similar things together.

:I suppose it's not the end of the world if something gets put into the wrong category, as categories can be changed by later editors. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 16:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Final Draft software activation

2025-08-12T12:42:22Z

Big Mac: Additional categories added

[[Final Draft (software)|Final Draft]] is an industry-standard screenwriting software. It announced in January 2025 that it was discontinuing activation services for Final Draft 10.

==Details of the change==
Final Draft announced they would discontinue activation and deactivation capabilities for Version 10 on June 30, 2025. This change means:<ref>Final Draft Company Email to Version 10 Users, January 15, 2025</ref> <ref>[[:File:FInal draft.pdf]]</ref>

*Users can't reinstall the software on new computers;
*Software can't be reactivated after operating system updates;
*Technical support ends February 1, 2025;
*Existing installs will continue working until the computer or operating system is updated.

The company offered users an upgrade path to Version 13 at a reduced price of $59.99 (from $99.99) as a solution for affected users.

==Meaning for consumer rights==
This case shows key issues with modern consumer rights:

===Loss of perpetual-license rights===
While users bought perpetual licenses for Version 10, the deactivation of authentication servers effectively [[License euthanasia|removes their ability to use]] the software on new systems or after updates. This changes what was sold as a permanent purchase into a time-limited license, without explicit user agreement.

===Forced obsolescence===
The company's decision to disable Version 10's activation creates an artificial barrier to its continued use. The software remains functional on existing systems, and could theoretically continue running indefinitely. However, the authentication requirement forces users toward paid upgrades, regardless of their needs or the software's actual functionality. Users who paid for a perpetual license may not be able to update their systems if they wish to continue using it.

===Industry standard lock-in===
Final Draft's position as the industry standard for screenwriting software means users face limited alternatives if they want to maintain compatibility with others in the industry. This market position worsens the impact of their licensing decisions on consumers.

==Broader implications==
This represents a growing trend in software licensing where companies can unilaterally alter the terms of the sale, taking away perpetual licenses through technical mechanisms rather than legal means. While the company cites security concerns and operating system compatibility, the core word-processing functions of the software still work, raising questions about the necessity of disabling activation.

==Alternatives==
A recent alternative for screenplays is the Markdown-like [https://fountain.io/ Fountain], an open standard supported by most screenwriting and production tools. However, Fountain cannot yet fully replace Final Draft files for production software, because text wrapping in Fountain is app-dependent, and page breaks are therefore not guaranteed to be consistent.

Some [[free and open-source]] multi-platform alternatives that one can use are [https://starc.app/ Story Architect] and [https://www.trelby.org/ Trelby], even though they may not fully replace Final Draft. Trelby supports Fountain as of Trelby version 2.4.<ref>https://fountain.io/apps/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Remote deactivation]]
[[Category:Forced obsolescence]]
[[Category:Ownership revocation]]

HNGRYnsite Camera: From smart kitchen aid to e-waste

2025-08-12T12:38:16Z

Big Mac: Additional categories added

The '''HNGRYnsite Camera''' was a smart refrigerator camera developed by '''Liebherr-Hausgeräte GmbH'''. It was designed to provide users with real-time images of their fridge interior, integrating with Liebherr’s '''HNGRY app''' to assist with grocery planning and food management.

==How It Worked==
The camera was installed inside the refrigerator and automatically took a photo every time the door was closed. These images were then sent to the '''HNGRY app''', allowing users to check their fridge contents remotely. The system aimed to reduce food waste and simplify grocery shopping by enabling users to see what they already had at home.

==Shutdown and Immediate Obsolescence==
On '''March 31, 2025''', Liebherr '''shut down the HNGRY app''', rendering all '''HNGRYnsite Cameras useless'''. The cameras were entirely dependent on the app, with no local access or alternative software support.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=FAQs zur HNGRY App |url=https://iamhngry.com/faqs/ |url-status=live |access-date=18 Apr 2025 |website=iamhngry.com}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Pakalski |first=Ingo |date=24 Feb 2025 |title=Kühlschrankkamera Hngrynsite wird zu Elektroschrott |url=https://www.golem.de/news/liebherr-deaktiviert-hngry-app-kuehlschrankkamera-hngrynsite-wird-zu-elektroschrott-2502-193647.html |url-status=live |access-date=18 Apr 2025 |website=golem.de}}</ref>

Liebherr offered '''full refunds''' for cameras purchased via its official online store but directed customers who bought from third-party sellers to contact their respective retailers.<ref name=":0" />

==User Backlash==
The shutdown '''effectively turned every HNGRYnsite Camera into e-waste overnight''', sparking frustration among users. Many had purchased the device under the assumption of long-term usability, only to find it completely inoperable within a few years.

Unlike some other smart home products, '''the cameras had no fallback functionality'''—no local image access, no offline mode, and no firmware update to repurpose them. Once the servers were turned off, the devices became plastic and electronic waste.<ref name=":1" />

==Another Case of Disposable Smart Tech==
The HNGRYnsite Camera joins a growing list of '''"smart" devices that lose all functionality once cloud services are discontinued'''. Critics argue that companies should provide alternative solutions, such as '''local access modes or open-source firmware''', rather than designing hardware with built-in obsolescence.

For Liebherr, the move marks a shift in its digital strategy—'''but for users, it’s just another expensive lesson in the risks of cloud-dependent smart appliances.'''

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Anti-Consumer Practices]]
[[Category:Smart home device obsolescence]]
[[Category:Cloud service dependency]]
[[Category:Remote deactivation]]
[[Category:Forced obsolescence]]
[[Category:Ownership revocation]]

Apple's planned obsolescence incidents

2025-08-12T12:34:32Z

Big Mac: Additional categories added

{{StubNotice}}

Apple's implementation of planned obsolescence is primarily driven by technological obsolescence, encompassing hardware, firmware, and software limitations. The company's hardware design choices, such as proprietary screws, glued components, and complex internal layouts, make repairs difficult for consumers and third-party repair shops.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353685307_From_Planned_Obsolescence_to_the_Circular_Economy_in_the_Smartphone_Industry_an_evolution_of_strategies_embodied_in_product_features|DOI=10.1017/pds.2021.422|first1=Mário|first2=Eric|last1=Barros|last2=Dimla|journal=Proceedings of the Design Society 1:1607-1616|title=From Planned Obsolescence to the Circular Economy in the Smartphone Industry: an evolution of strategies embodied in product features|date=August 2021}} </ref> Firmware restrictions further limit repairability by disabling key functionalities when non-Apple components are used, as seen in battery and camera replacements, where users receive error messages and lose features like battery health monitoring and Face ID.{{Citation needed}}

Software updates also contribute to planned obsolescence by leading to performance degradation. Research has confirmed that Apple's software updates negatively impact battery performance, often slowing down older devices and making them less functional over time.{{Citation needed}} Apple has been criticized for discontinuing software support for older iPhone models, which forces consumers to upgrade to newer devices to maintain essential functions such as web browsing and email.

Despite growing regulatory pressure, Apple continues to control its repair ecosystem by restricting access to spare parts and discouraging third-party repairs. On the French Repairability Index (''[https://www.indicereparabilite.fr Indice de réparabilité]''), the majority of iPhone models obtain a score lower than five out of ten.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Indice de réparabilité Smartphone |trans-title=Smartphone repairability scores |url=https://www.indicereparabilite.fr/appareils/multimedia/smartphone/page/3/?orderby=price |access-date=13 Feb 2025 |website=French Repairability Index |language=fr}}</ref>

The EU-mandated transition in charging cables from Lightning to USB-C, affecting all smartphone manufacturers, required updates to existing accessories, reflecting a broader industry-wide standardization rather than forced obsolescence.

==Lawsuit==
In December 2022, French prosecutors opened an investigation into Apple over its part-pairing practice, which restricts third-party repairs. HOP, part of the Right to Repair Campaign, had previously filed a complaint, leading to Apple paying €25 million to the French treasury in 2020. HOP argues that this practice fosters planned obsolescence and harms sustainability efforts, advocating for a European ban on part-pairing. The investigation continues as part of broader efforts to protect consumer rights and encourage repairability.<ref>{{Cite web |date=15 May 2023 |title=Plainte contre Apple: le Procureur de la République ouvre l’enquête |trans-title=Complaint against Apple: the Public Prosecutor opens the investigation |url=https://www.halteobsolescence.org/plainte-contre-apple-le-procureur-de-la-republique-ouvre-lenquete/ |language=fr}}</ref>

Legal actions against independent repair shops further solidify its control, making it difficult for users to extend the lifespan of their devices without relying on Apple’s costly repair services.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Apple IPhones]]
[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]
[[Category:Planned obsolescence]]