Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:CATalyst

2025-01-28T00:52:39Z

CATalyst:

== Moving pages to category namespace ==

Hey @[[User:CATalyst|CATalyst]], I see you have recently made a number of edits moving pages to the category: namespace and leaving behind redirects. This has not been the way we have been doing this for a reason. These pages served as commone term/theme pages that defined relevant topics to consumer rights. Categories don't need (and in my opinion) should not have that lengthy summary above all the pages that belong in them. Creating a category and adding a link to the relevant article would be enough.

Another reason for this, apart from our organizational scheme, is that pages in the category namespace do not show up in searches. Having a redirect pages combats this but it is not neccessary. I appreciate you trying to help out though, our documentation is still a work in progress so the confusion is understandable. For some info on categories and how we plan to use them see [[Project:Categorization]] (though terms and incidents are not properly documented as of right now)

[[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 13:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@[[User:Kostas|Kostas]] No problem; thanks for the link. Does this wiki have a general style guide? If not, would it be helpful to have one? --[[User:CATalyst|CATalyst]] ([[User talk:CATalyst|talk]]) 00:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Retroactively amended purchase

2025-01-27T05:27:44Z

CATalyst: Redirected page to Category:Retroactively amended purchase

#REDIRECT [[:Category:Retroactively amended purchase]]

Category:Retroactively amended purchase

2025-01-27T05:27:35Z

CATalyst:

{{Under_Development|date=15 January 2025}}

A retroactively amended purchase is a purchase wherein the terms, functionality, or usability of a product or service are altered after the purchase. These changes may result from policy updates, the deprecation of supporting infrastructure, or other modifications that affect the consumer’s ability to fully use or benefit from their purchase.

===Overview===

Retroactively amended purchases highlight a broader issue of ownership and consumer rights in a world increasingly dominated by digital locks, proprietary architectures, and subscription-based models. It often includes changes that render products non-functional or limit their intended use, sparking debates about fairness, transparency, and ethical business practices.

===Characteristics===
Retroactively amended purchases typically involve:
*'''Dependence on External Infrastructure:''' Changes to servers, authentication systems, or online services that limit the product's usability.
*'''Proprietary Restrictions:''' Use of client—server architectures or digital locks that enforce control over post-purchase use.
*'''Policy Updates:''' Alterations to terms of service or warranty agreements that impose new restrictions or conditions on previously purchased items.
*'''Consumer Disadvantage:''' Negative impacts on the buyer, including loss of functionality, increased costs, or decreased value.

===Examples===

====Software deprecation====
Products reliant on proprietary authentication servers are often decommissioned when companies phase out support. For example, certain smart-home devices became inoperable after their manufacturers shut down the servers required for functionality.

====Policy-driven changes====
[[Retroactive policy enforcement|Retroactive enforcement]] of warranty conditions, such as voiding coverage for using third-party components, alters the original purchase agreement to the detriment of the consumer.

====Service subscriptions====
Features that were once included in the purchase price are moved to subscription models post-sale, forcing consumers to pay recurring fees for functionality they previously owned.

===Ethical concerns===
Retroactively amending a purchase raises significant ethical questions:
*'''Erosion of consumer trust:''' Buyers expect the terms of their purchase to remain consistent over time.
*'''Violation of ownership rights:''' Restricting post-purchase use undermines the principle of ownership.
*'''Imbalanced power dynamics:''' Consumers often have little recourse against providers imposing unilateral changes.

===Provider responsibilities===
Providers hold significant responsibility in ensuring that post-purchase changes do not undermine consumer trust or violate fair-trade principles. To uphold these standards:

*'''Transparency:''' Providers must clearly disclose any potential for post-purchase changes at the point of sale. This includes:
**Highlighting dependencies on proprietary infrastructure (e.g., authentication servers or cloud services).
**Clearly stating expiration dates for critical functionality tied to subscriptions or external support.

*'''Grace periods:''' Providers should offer extended notice periods before implementing changes that impact functionality. This ensures consumers have time to make informed decisions or adjustments, such as:
**Migrating to alternative solutions.
**Backing up critical data or content.

*'''Alternatives:''' Providers should offer reasonable alternatives to consumers affected by decommissioned services or features. These alternatives may include:
**Open access to protocols or APIs, enabling third-party or community support.
**Buyback programs or refunds for products rendered non-functional.
**Migration tools to other platforms or devices.

*'''Commitment to longevity:''' Providers should design products and services to prioritize longevity, avoiding reliance on:
**'''Digital Locks:''' Locks that prevent users from independently maintaining or modifying purchased products.
**'''Proprietary Client-Server Architectures:''' Systems that artificially limit functionality to a specific service or server controlled solely by the provider.

*'''Respect for ownership:''' Providers must respect the principle of ownership. Once a product is purchased, consumers should have the freedom to use, repair, and maintain it without interference from retroactive changes or unjust restrictions.

===Broader implications===
The practice of retroactively amending purchases reflects a troubling trend in consumer-facing industries:
*'''Erosion of ownership rights:''' Increasing reliance on digital control mechanisms shifts power away from buyers.
*'''Data and privacy concerns:''' The integration of data-dependent features into consumer goods complicates ownership and privacy rights.
*'''Precedent for anti-consumer behavior:''' Allowing such practices to persist normalizes anti-consumer policies.

===Conclusion===
Purchases that are retroactively amended undermine consumer trust, erode ownership rights, and create unfair power dynamics. Providers must adhere to ethical principles, ensuring transparency, fairness, and respect for ownership. Advocacy for stronger consumer-protection laws and broader adoption of open standards can help mitigate these challenges.

===See Also===
*[[Retroactive policy enforcement]]
*[[Consumer rights]]
*[[Right to repair]]

===References===
<references />
[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Consumer rights]]
[[Category:Retroactively amended purchase]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]
[[Category:Subscription-based services]]

Talk:Retroactive policy enforcement

2025-01-27T05:24:34Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page Talk:Retroactive policy enforcement to Category talk:Retroactive policy enforcement: moving to category so we can categorize relevant examples

== Name change ==

Discuss here potential different names for this article. Retroactive Application of Policies and Enforcement and its acronym can be referred to within the article as a colloquialism, however should not be the title (see: senator/Granny rule in the Mission statement)

- Keith

Retroactive policy enforcement

2025-01-27T05:24:34Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page Retroactive policy enforcement to Category:Retroactive policy enforcement: moving to category so we can categorize relevant examples

'''Retroactive policy enforcement''' is a subset of the behaviors of [[Retroactively amended purchases]]. It occurs when companies or platforms introduce new rules, policies, or enforcement mechanisms and apply them to agreements, content, or actions that predate the policy change. This practice has significant implications for consumers, ranging from loss of access to purchased goods or services, to privacy violations, and even irreversible consequences.

===Overview===
Retroactively enforced policies are increasingly prevalent in the digital economy, where companies retain the ability to unilaterally modify [[terms of service]], privacy agreements, or user contracts. These changes are often made without consumer consent or adequate notice, leaving users exposed to unfavorable outcomes.

This approach enables corporations to rewrite the rules of engagement after consumers have already committed to purchases, contracts, or behavior based on earlier agreements. In many cases, the damage is already done before consumers are even aware of the change, leaving them without meaningful recourse.

===Key implications===

====Restriction of access====
One of the most concerning effects of retroactive policy enforcement is the sudden restriction or removal of consumer access to previously purchased products or services. For example:

*'''Example 1:''' A streaming platform changes its policy to restrict the number of devices that can stream simultaneously. Consumers who purchased long-term subscriptions for use across multiple devices suddenly lose the ability to share within their household, with no refund or alternative offered.
*'''Example 2:''' An app store retroactively removes a popular game from its library after a policy violation by the developer. Users who purchased the game lose access permanently, even though their transactions complied with the terms at the time of purchase.

====Data harvesting====
Retroactive amendments to privacy policies often permit the collection and processing of consumer data in ways that were not authorized at the time of the initial agreement. Once the data is shared or used, the damage is often irreversible. For example:

*'''Example 1:''' A social media platform updates its privacy policy to allow third-party advertisers to access user-uploaded photos and personal data. By the time users become aware of the change, their photos and data have already been shared widely, with no option to retract or delete the information.
*'''Example 2:''' A smart home device company retroactively introduces a policy allowing audio recordings to be used for training artificial intelligence systems. Consumers who relied on the company’s earlier assurances of privacy have no way to undo the sharing of their sensitive recordings.

====Financial penalties====
Retroactively enforced policies can also result in unforeseen financial consequences for consumers. For example:

*'''Example 1:''' A subscription service retroactively introduces a limit on account usage for its lower-tier plans, forcing existing subscribers to pay more for the same level of service or lose functionality.
*'''Example 2:''' A cloud-storage provider reduces the free-storage limit for existing accounts and begins charging overage fees. Users with large amounts of data already stored are unable to retrieve their files unless they pay for additional storage, creating a financial burden.

===Mechanisms that enable retroactive enforcement===
The retroactive application of policies is facilitated by several systemic factors:

*'''Unilateral-modification clauses:''' Many terms of service include clauses that allow companies to change policies at any time without consumer input.
*'''Opaque notifications:''' Policy changes are often buried in lengthy updates or presented through ambiguous notices, making it difficult for consumers to understand the implications.
*'''Platform lock-in:''' Consumers reliant on specific platforms or services may have no viable alternatives, forcing them to accept retroactive changes or risk losing access entirely.

===Consumer-protection concerns===
Retroactively enforcing policies undermines consumer trust and creates significant risks, including:

*'''Erosion of ownership rights:''' Consumers effectively lose ownership of digital goods or services when access is contingent on arbitrary policy changes.
*'''Unfair practices:''' Applying new policies to past behavior or agreements violates principles of fairness and reasonable expectations in contractual relationships.
*'''Irreversible damage:''' In many cases, the harm is already done before consumers are even notified of a policy change. Data already shared, accounts already revoked, or services already modified cannot be undone, leaving consumers with no recourse.
*'''Lack of accountability:''' Companies rarely provide clear recourse or compensation for consumers harmed by retroactive enforcement.

===Recommendations===
To protect consumers, policymakers and regulatory bodies should consider the following actions:

*'''Require clear notice and consent:''' Mandate that companies provide explicit, user-friendly notifications for policy changes and obtain consumer consent before retroactive application.
*'''Limit unilateral changes:''' Restrict the ability of companies to retroactively enforce new terms without consumer approval.
*'''Strengthen enforcement mechanisms:''' Introduce penalties for companies that engage in deceptive or harmful retroactive policy enforcement.
*'''Promote data-protection standards:''' Require companies to provide clear opt-out mechanisms for data-sharing practices, even when retroactively introduced.

===Conclusion===
Retroactive enforcing of policies represents a significant challenge in modern consumer protection. Without stronger regulatory frameworks and more robust consumer rights, individuals will continue to face unfair practices that undermine trust, ownership, and privacy in the digital economy. For consumers, the harm often comes too late to address, which highlights the need for proactive and enforceable protections.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Consumer rights]]
[[Category:Retroactively amended purchase]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]
[[Category:Subscription-based services]]

Post-purchase EULA modification

2025-01-27T05:23:25Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page Post-purchase EULA modification to Category:Post-purchase EULA modification: moving to category so we can categorize relevant examples

Post-purchase [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘[[EULA Roofie]]’, is an increasingly common practice whereby the terms that govern a customer’s use of a product are modified after the customer’s purchase of the product. Such changes are frequently impossible for a customer to reject without either losing access to the product they paid for or losing substantial functionality. In some cases, no ‘reject’ option is given, other than to power off the product and never use it again, such as in the case of the Roku smart TV{{Citation needed}}.

Such a modification can work in the consumer’s favor (such as in the case of [[Valve]] [[Valve Removes Arbitration Requirement From Steam Subscriber Agreement|changing the terms]] of the [[Steam]] subscriber agreement to remove [[forced arbitration]]), or simply serve to clarify or correct specific terms in a way which both is reasonable and does not adversely affect the consumer.

A problem exists, however, when such a change is made in order to reduce the rights, or increase the obligations, of the consumer.

====The ‘EULA Roofie’====
The use of the colloquial term ‘[[EULA Roofie]]’ stems from comparisons between the practice of post-purchase EULA modification, and the practice of spiking a drink – where consent is sought and given for the consumption of the drink, but not for the consumption of whatever it has been spiked with.

==Responses to, and defences used for, post-purchase EULA modification==
Many arguments intended to defend post-purchase EULA modification cite the legitimate reasons for such an action, as described above. They argue that it would not be practical to maintain a long-running service without being able to occasionally change or clarify their terms. Others will attempt to defend their actions by deflecting from the issue, such as in [this] case, where Repairshopr defended their decision to alter their EULA to allow them to collect user interaction logs for AI training by simply pretending that they would never do such a thing, and acting as if there were no substantial changes to their EULA which would allow them to collect and process data in that way (of course, this was done without explicitly stating that no such change had occurred).

A common argument against the importance of this issue is that any user still needs to accept the changes{{Citation needed}} in order to be bound by the new EULA, and that the previous EULA may have included language stating that the company may alter the terms of the EULA after purchase. This argument, however, fails to account for the situation the user will typically find themselves in. In most cases, users are given a simple ‘tickbox’, without proper summarisation of the changes contained in the EULA update. If the user does not accept this change, they will be unable to use the product which they purchased. As is common knowledge, 99% of users in such a situation will simply accept the EULA changes in order to regain access to their product, as they have neither the inclination nor the mental bandwidth necessary to read through a lengthy contract every time such an update is issued.

In extreme cases, companies may take a ''lack'' of action as consent, as was the case in this incident [link to that sock company thing], where non-response to an email was considered by the company to be appropriate consent for a change to the EULA.

Particularly insidious examples of this practice include [[Adobe]]’s EULA changes, which [[Adobe's AI Policy|required users to accept]] the use of their art and media for the training of AI, or face the loss of access to Adobe products [https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/Adobe%27s_AI_Policy]. It was felt by a number of prominent creative professionals that this amounted to a substantial changing of the ‘deal’ they were offered at the time of purchase, effectively amounting to the theft of their creative efforts. Many creative professionals are deeply entrenched in the Adobe ecosystem, and would suffer substantial financial harm if they were to stop using Adobe products, as the time taken to learn alternative tools would directly correlate to lost work and payment. Combined with Adobe’s practice of charging a premium for the privilege of early subscription cancellation, users who did not want their art used for AI training were unethically forced into choosing between their livelihood and their integrity.

Because of the nature of the agreements, legal professionals[who?] have argued that many cases of such contract changes are unenforceable, when the users have not been properly informed of contractual changes, and those changes are beyond what would be expected in a typical contract of this type{{Citation needed}}. The reality for the average user, however, is that they cannot realistically challenge such a change, because of the costs involved with litigation, and instead must accept the poisoned choice they are offered: suck it up and deal with the new terms, or lose access to a product they paid for.

==Legislative action==
Situations involving post-purchase EULA modification have been taken to court on a number of occasions, including...

Legislative proposals to counteract this trend include...

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]

Forced arbitration

2025-01-27T05:20:40Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page Forced arbitration to Category:Forced arbitration: moving to category so we can categorize relevant examples

'''Forced arbitration''' is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."<ref name=":1">[[wikipedia:Arbitration#References|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration]]</ref>

==How it works==
Businesses will typically add an arbitration clause to their [[Terms of Service]] or Terms of Use. This clause generally outlines how disputes are handled between the consumer and the business. A good example of a typical arbitration clause can be found in [[Instagram]]'s Terms of Use, which, as of January 6, 2025, is under Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes:<ref name=":0">https://web.archive.org/web/20250106102429/https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870/ (January 6th, 2025) Retrieved January 13th, 2025</ref><blockquote>"Except as provided below, you and we agree that any cause of action, legal claim, or dispute between you and us arising out of or related to these Terms or Instagram ("claim(s)") must be resolved by arbitration on an individual basis. [[Class action|Class actions]] and class arbitrations are not permitted; you and we may bring a claim only on your own behalf and cannot seek relief that would affect other Instagram users."</blockquote>Currently, in the United States, arbitration clauses such as this one are legal under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]] (FAA).<ref name=":2">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title9/html/USCODE-2019-title9.htm</ref> Efforts have been made, however, to prohibit forced arbitration, most notably the [[Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal]] (FAIR) Act of 2023.<ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1376</ref>

==Why it is a problem==

===Revocation of rights===
The practice of forced arbitration is one that is designed to revoke the rights of the consumer. In this case, the consumer's right to sue or participate in a [[class action]] against a business. Instead, the consumer must work with an arbiter of the businesses' choosing behind closed doors to resolve claims, which is widely believed to result in biased outcomes.

===Inconvenient opt-out procedure===
Arbitration is often made inconvenient for users to opt-out of. Instead of giving users the option to do so at sign-up digitally, most businesses will require users to send a handwritten letter within 30 days of their sign-up to opt-out of arbitration. This type of opt-out clause can also be seen in Instagram's Terms of Use:<ref name=":0" /><blockquote>"You can opt out of this provision within 30 days of the date that you agreed to these Terms. To opt out, you must send your name, residence address, username, email address or phone number you use for your Instagram account, and a clear statement that you want to opt out of this arbitration agreement, and you must send them here:" [Address redacted]</blockquote>

This practice is similar to how gyms will often require members to travel to their location or send snail mail to cancel a membership, while an online system could easily be put in its place.

===Conflict of interest===
Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases''Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases''. Amit Seru, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. February 2023. Retrieved January 22nd, 2025.</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ ''NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration''. July 20, 2009. Retrieved January 22nd, 2025.</ref>

==Examples==
Some examples of arbitration clauses in terms and conditions include:

Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />

Sony PlayStation Network Terms of Service - Section 14 - Binding Individual Arbitration<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20241216114722/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/ (December 16th, 2024) Retrieved January 13th, 2025</ref>

[[Ticketmaster]] Terms of Use - Section 17 - Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use#section17 https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use] (January 5th, 2025) Retrieved January 13th, 2025</ref>

Section 27.1 of [[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, says "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court." <ref>https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/terms/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]

License euthanasia

2025-01-27T05:20:10Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page License euthanasia to Category:License euthanasia: moving to category so we can categorize relevant examples

#REDIRECT [[:Category:License euthanasia]]

License euthanasia

2025-01-27T05:20:10Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page License euthanasia to Category:License euthanasia: moving to category so we can categorize relevant examples

{{StubNotice}}
{{incomplete}}
“License euthanasia” is the practice of revoking perpetual licenses under the pretext that the company is looking out for the user’s best interest by forcing them to update to a later version. This term was coined by consumer-rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]], who observed that [[Final Draft software activation|Final Draft]]’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanced age” “made it sound like they’re doing the kind thing” by putting old software out of its misery.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV4VDvseIE&t=439s</ref>

<references />

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]

Forced arbitration

2025-01-27T05:18:17Z

CATalyst:

Forced app download

2025-01-27T05:17:42Z

CATalyst:

{{incomplete}}
'''Forced app download''' is a practice by businesses and government entities, where users are forced to download an app to their phones to perform basic tasks that could have otherwise been done on a standard web browser<ref>[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9380491 D. Tian, Y. Ma, A. Balasubramanian, Y. Liu, G. Huang and X. Liu, "Characterizing Embedded Web Browsing in Mobile Apps," in IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 3912-3925, 1 Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TMC.2021.3065945.]</ref> (e.g., adding a credit card for payments) or in real life (e.g., ordering a coffee).

Forced app download is becoming increasingly popular in many countries pushing digitization. A prime example is Singapore whose government is all-in on digital everything, where it is impossible for anyone to have a bank account without using the bank's app, and everyone must have a device that runs stock iOS or Android in order to download various government and business apps from their respective official app stores. Devices must also be running stock operating systems, since most government and business apps conduct intrusive checks and require extensive technical knowledge to run if a device is jailbroken or rooted.<ref>https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/8330-app-compatibility-with-grapheneos</ref><ref>https://github.com/chiteroman/PlayIntegrityFix</ref>

Most companies<ref>https://cybernews.com/news/facebook-spying-snapchat-youtube-amazon-installing-kits/</ref> (and likely most governments)<ref>https://lunduke.substack.com/p/the-pokemon-go-spying-conspiracy</ref> would love for this to happen in more countries across the globe because forced app download allows for:

#'''Identification and tracking of users''' - not just on an account level and payments, but through deep device identifiers, location, and network connection
#'''Push of the cashless agenda''' - digital-only payments typically go hand-in-hand with app-only experiences
#'''Increased digital integration''' - endless possibilities of integrating and sharing data with payment processors, ad providers,
#'''Increased centralization and dependency on big companies''' - putting more power in the hands of big tech (Apple and Google) with mandatory official app store downloads and big payments (Visa and MasterCard) with forced digital payments

==Characteristics==
Forced app download involves:

#'''Forcing download and use of app to interact with a business''' - Basic tasks like ordering, making payments, changing settings.
#'''Deliberately crippling or removing functionality from the web experience''' - Prevent users from having an alternative interface to perform basic tasks.
#'''Forcing users to always be on the latest version of an app''' - "For your security" (as they usually claim), most of these apps will constantly check for the latest version and self-disable if they are older than X versions (varies by company)
#'''Mandatory use of account''' - For most of these apps to work, you must have an account for features to work. For example, with the Luckin Coffee app, you must create an account tied to your phone number. You cannot order as a guest

==Key implications==

===User tracking and intrusion of privacy===
The hallmarks of forced app download are mandatory account creation and usage, and digital payments. This allows tracking of the user not just by the company behind the app, but the payment provider and any other associated third-party partners.

===Mandatory use of "approved devices" and big-tech operating systems===
Most apps are only available for download on official from official app stores, meaning consumers must use a device running stock iOS or Android, or else jump through hoops to run them<ref>https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Android#Run_Android_apps_on_Arch_Linux</ref><ref>https://stackoverflow.com/a/18003462</ref>.

Devices must also be running stock operating systems since most government and business apps conduct intrusive checks<ref>https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity/setup#default</ref> and will not run if a device is jailbroken or rooted.

Some companies such as big banks in Singapore have also started incorporating checks for "unverified apps" in their app. This means their app will scan your phone and check for sideloaded apps (anywhere that is not the official app store. For example, an app downloaded directly from APK Mirror or an unofficial app repository like F-Droid) as part of "anti-scam security measures that include restricting customers from accessing the banks’ digital services on their mobile phones if apps from unverified app stores – also known as sideloaded apps – are detected"<ref>https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/dbs-uob-anti-scam-sideloaded-app-malware-measure-latest-bank-restrict-app-access-3796806</ref>

===[[Surge pricing]]===
So far, the implementation of surge pricing in the context of businesses that use forced app download has not yet been seen. However, trust that the enterprising individuals and ecommerce platform providers (especially "modern headless ecommerce" companies<ref>https://www.forrester.com/blogs/doing-selling-and-being-headless-commerce/</ref>) looking to maximize clean out of consumers' wallets will quickly develop and deploy surge pricing once businesses with forced app download gain sufficient footing both in their respective industries and in general market penetration.

Since ordering and payments are entirely digital, it is very possible to see surge pricing (similar to what we've seen from ride hailing companies like Uber, Lyft and Grab) implemented across other industries.

For example, a restaurant that is popular enough could implement surge pricing to charge more during peak hours, like weekday lunch time to hit the downtime office crowd that is lacking in time and places to eat, or Friday night when many people are looking to go out.

===Third-party integration===
Just like how some car insurance providers in the US are adjusting their rates based on "smart" reporting from cars, it is also very possible for other intrusive and oppressive pair ups to happen. For example:

*Restaurants, cafes and bars with forced app download sharing data with health insurance companies, who increase your premium if they see a lifestyle/pattern of ordering unhealthy dishes or overly large portions, or frequenting that bubble tea shop too often.
*Government tax agency charging you "excess carbon footprint" taxes because you often order a lot of clothes beyond the number that the "Average" person of your profile wears, based on what your favorite fast fashion retailer with forced app download is sharing with them.
[[File:Digital turbine logo .png|alt=digital turbine logo |thumb|digital turbine logo ]]
[[File:No unverified apps.png|thumb|Singapore banks will "restrict access if unverified apps AKA sideloaded apps are found on customers' phones" (News story from Sep 2023)]]

==Examples==
'''Mobile Carriers and App marketplaces'''

Companies like [[digital turbine]] auction<ref>https://www.digitalturbine.com/dt-fairbid</ref> off placement in carriers automatic download lists and recommended app's placement in first and third party app stores<ref>https://www.digitalturbine.com/telecom</ref>

Digital turbine sells forced app downloads from app developers like: [[zynga]], miniclip games, [[King Digital Entertainment|'''King''' Digital Entertainment]] and [[Uber EULA precludes jury trial|Uber]], placement in forced download lists to carries like: [[Verizon]], [[At&T]], [[Cricket wireless]], us cellular, tracfone and T-mobile. <ref>https://www.digitalturbine.com/</ref>

===Banking and finance===
All banks in Singapore (Citi, DBS, UOB, OCBC, Standard Chartered, CIMB) mandate use of their apps for consumers to perform any online banking activities, including logging in via their web browser.
[[File:Forced app download.png|thumb|Luckin Coffee, a China-origin Starbucks competitor, forces you to download their app to order and pay for coffee. You cannot order coffee at the cashier in their store, let alone pay. You must use the app to interact with this business and digital payments to pay.]]
The apps generate notifications that require users to approve/deny actions like logging in via a web browser, initiating a payment, adding a payee, etc via the app itself. Some banks previously offered sending an OTP via SMS (text) as an alternative to app-based approval but this has since been discontinued for "security reasons".

==='''Insurance'''===
Auto insurance companies like [[Progressive]], require non policy holders effected by automotive incidents their policyholders claim to submit photos and video evidence of damages exclusively through their mobile app.<ref name=":0">https://www.progressive.com/claims/auto-process/</ref> Affected non policy holders can't complete the entire claim process through their website even though you can start the process online from any device and web browser. <ref name=":0" />

===Utilities and public services===
SP Group is Singapore's primary and default electricity provider, as well as the country's only provider for gas and water for consumers. In 2022, SP Group removed the ability to manage payments from their website, forcing users to download and use their mobile app to pay bills/manage recurring payments<ref>https://www.spdigital.sg/spapp/bill-payment</ref>.

As they are the country's only provider for gas and water, everyone in Singapore MUST download their app at some point.

===Home appliances and hardware===
Speaker and sound hardware company [[Sonos]] has been a big practitioner of forced app download since at least 2017<ref>https://en.community.sonos.com/advanced-setups-229000/make-sonos-work-without-internet-6795315</ref>. Sonos makes it extremely difficult and annoying, if not impossible for their customers to use their purchased hardware without an app and/or internet connection.

Even though it is possible to use Sonos speakers without an app, initial setup has required the download and use of Sonos' app since at least May 2022.

"Yes you can (use the Sonos Roam speaker without an app). However, you will need to set it up for the first time using the app." (May 2022)<ref>https://en.community.sonos.com/portable-speakers-229130/can-i-use-a-roam-without-the-app-6869207</ref>

In addition, not all Sonos products support use without an app (April 2023)<ref>https://soundscapehq.com/how-to-use-sonos-without-app/</ref> and even if they do, sans-app usability is only limited to one speaker.

"You can use speakers without an app, but it only applies to a single speaker. If you want to play audio across multiple speakers, you will have to use the app and there is no other workaround to this." (Dec 2021)<ref>https://earrockers.com/can-you-use-sonos-speakers-without-the-app/</ref>

===Retail and ecommerce===
Ecommerce giant [[Shopee]] which has a stronghold in online retail in South East Asia and Latin America has integrated a soft forced app download to their customer experience.

While it is still possible to browse, shop and checkout on a web browser, coupons usable on the web experience (regardless if mobile or desktop device) are limited to "Shipping Discount" coupons only. All other shopping coupons "Discount & Cashback" are only usable with Shopee's apps on iOS and Android.

When a customer attempts to check out on a web browser, Shopee shows that Discount & Cashback coupons are not usable because "Current device does not meet voucher T&C". On closer inspection of the terms and conditions of those coupons, Shopee specifies "Device: iOS, Android". What they are referring to is you must download and use their mobile apps for those operating systems in order to use most of their coupons. As pictured, the coupons are still not available on iOS and Android devices if the customer is using their web browser. They MUST download the Shopee app.
[[File:Shopee restricts coupon usage to app only.png|thumb|LEFT: Shopee limits customers to using "Shipping Discount" coupons only if checking out on a web browser (desktop and mobile).

MIDDLE: All other shopping coupons "Discount & Cashback" are only usable with Shopee's apps on iOS and Android.

RIGHT: Closer inspection of the terms and conditions where Shopee specifies a device requirement for using many of their coupons.

When Shopee specifies "Device: iOS, Android", they mean customers must download and use their mobile apps for those operating systems in order to use most of their coupons.

Using a web browser on iOS and Android does not count and coupons in question remain disabled in this scenario.]]
[[File:Shopee coupon still unusable on mobile web.jpg|thumb|Using a web browser on iOS and Android does not count and coupons with the device requirement remain disabled. What Shopee means by "Device: iOS, Android" in their coupons' terms and conditions is that customers MUST download and use the Shopee app for those coupons to be usable.]]

===Food and beverage===
An increasing number of 'digital-native' food businesses that are app-only are making their way onto the market. For example, Luckin Coffee, a Starbucks competitor of China origin with stores in Singapore and planned expansion into Malaysia and the US in 2025<ref>https://www.worldcoffeeportal.com/Latest/News/2024/October/China-s-Luckin-Coffee-reportedly-planning-US-launc</ref>, only allows ordering of beverages and payments via its app. The way it works is you download the app, register an account, log in, order a coffee and pay for it, then pick it up at a Luckin Coffee location. "With Luckin, you do not order coffee over the counter like in regular Western coffee shops. Instead, you do everything online. I ordered my drinks here without even needing to talk to the Barista!"<ref>https://www.clearlycoffee.com/review-signature-luckin-coffee-drinks-photos-creamy-dreamy-big-cheesy-coconut-latte/</ref>

With a food-and-beverage business that is fully committed to forced app download like Luckin Coffee, there is no way to order nor pay at the physical store. You must download and use the app to interact with the business.

Forced app download represents the next stage of evolution from QR code based ordering. The key differences are:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Characteristic
!Forced app download
!QR-code based
|-
|Interface
|App downloaded from official app store
|Page opened in your choice of web browser
|-
|Ordering
|Order MUST be placed via app
|QR is pushed but usually possible to order offline (in real life)
|-
|Login
|You MUST create an account and log in to place an order
|Not required, often no registration is possible
|-
|Payments
|Cashless digital payment only
Payment MUST be made via app
|Depending on website, sometimes order online, pay offline
Depending on business, cash payments are usually possible
|}

==References==
[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
<references />

Planned obsolescence

2025-01-27T05:17:04Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}
Planned obsolescence is a business strategy where a product is designed in such a way that it will inevitably fail or become obsolete and require replacement with a non-obsolete product. Planned obsolescence directly harms the consumer by reducing product lifetime and by generating unnecessary waste.

==How planned obsolescence impacts consumer rights==
Planned obsolescence is undeniably harmful to consumers as it directly harms product functionality, in addition this obsolescence inevitably generates waste.

=== Excessive waste ===
Planned obsolescence is implemented with the intent that the consumer will replace their dysfunctional product with a functioning one; companies would like the dysfunctional product to disappear into the void but obsolete products usually end up being discarded if they cannot be recycled.

=== Obfuscation of true product value ===
It is difficult for a consumer to predict how planned obsolescence will damage their purchase overtime which will make them unable to come to accurate conclusions on whether a purchase is worth the price.

=== Dependence on third-party repairs ===
Some consumers may be interested in maintaining their device by replacing obsolete components with newer ones, consumers will inevitably look to third-parties for repair which may open the user to [[security]] and [[safety]] risks. Companies make this difficult by putting [[DRM]] into their products to prevent unauthorized component replacement thus which worsens the waste problem<ref>Insert reference to company doing this</ref>.

== Examples ==

* [[IPhone planned obsolescence incidencies|IPhone planned obsolescence incidences]] - These definitely exist someone has to write an article.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Articles in need of additional work]]
[[Category:Articles requiring expansion]]

Right to repair

2025-01-27T05:16:04Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}

----
'''Right to repair''' is a legal right for owners of devices and equipment to freely modify and repair products such as automobiles, electronics, and farm equipment. Right to repair may also refer to the social movement of citizens putting pressure on their governments to enact laws protecting a right to repair.

There are several forces that result in interference with a right to repair, some intentional and some incidental. The Consumer Action Taskforce generally focuses on practices that are intentional. The motivations for interference in a right to repair are sometimes but not limited to direct financial benefit or market control.

===Anti-repair practices===
Practices by companies and organizations that result in interference with right to repair often have other stated goals than to interfere with repair, or argue the importance of that goal supercedes any repair considerations that may be interfered with. Common stated goals used in the examples of this wiki are for security, to make warranty possible, to indemnify, safety, compliance with other regulation, or quality control. Right to repair advocacy seeks to challenge the validity of the stated goals, both on its merit and on its truthfulness as the motivation for the practice, due to the resulting interference with a consumer's right to repair. These goals are argued to be a mask for other outcomes that are meant to benefit that organization in other ways, often for financial benefit by limiting access to repair resources that result in higher costs to the consumer and fewer choices in repair options.

====Parts====
A way that companies can make their products more complicated is by using specialized parts in different ways:

*An off the shelf part that has had a slight change that causes it to be its own unique part number
*A part that isn't used in any other device
*A specialty part with no function of its own other than codependency with another part that is necessary and could technically function without it.

In the case of a company making their own unique part number, this causes the part to be exclusively offered to the company that 'created' it and unavailable for 3rd-party repairs. This now makes the company the exclusive repairer of the device and they can charge whatever they want, or the device is unrepairable since the company doesn't repair that device and the part can't be readily sourced.

In the case of parts that aren't used in other devices, this can cause repair prices to shoot up, since there isn't an incentive for repair shops to have this part readily available. Using phones as an example, Phone A and Phone B are both from the same manufacturer, and are physically indistinguishable. However, on the inside Phone A uses a completely different screen connection than Phone B, and Phone B has a completely different battery shape than Phone A. The parts are no longer interchangeable between the phones, and more parts need to be stocked as a result. As well, the repair shop takes a risk on keeping a stock of parts that may or may not sell because they are exclusive to a certain phone. This can also lead to people not wanting to have their phone repaired, since they will be without their phone for a week or two while the shop waits for a part to ship.

====Software====
Some ways that companies can and (some) have been making software worse for consumers is among the following:

*Requiring a subscription for software which doesn't need constant updates or cloud content to function
*Introducing proprietary protocols or file types without any innovation or real addition of features (for instance, if a company introduces a word processor which doesn't have any more features than a standard .odt or .docx file, then there likely isn't a real reason for it to use its own proprietary format).
*Not providing troubleshooting or issue workaround information on reasonable terms (for instance, requiring an absurd amount of money and/or technical certificates for said information is beyond what would be reasonable)
*Making software needlessly dependent on cloud infrastructure
*Regressing features and usability for unnecessary reasons

These can interfere with daily lives and the ability of professionals to rectify any software issues. For instance, a company charging an absurd amount of money for information on the location of one checkbox in one of their settings dialog can lead to a professional spending an extra hour or two to locate the dialog and the specific checkbox.

Proprietary filetypes and protocols can make hardware useless if the company who made it closes their business without disclosing the software, protocol, or filetype to the public or surviving entity before doing so.
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Positive practices]]

Right to own

2025-01-27T05:15:54Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}
The '''right to own''' is an right for consumers to be able to completely own their products. CAT believes that a consumer only owns their product if they have full control over it. Ownership is a key concept to consumer rights protection.

==Extent of the right to own==
As established, a consumer only owns their purchased product if they completely control it. If control is revocable, the consumer does not own their product. A consumer does not own their product if they pay a [[Subscription service|subscription]] for continued use. A consumer does not own their product if it [[Discontinuation bricking|bricks itself]] when the company goes out of business<ref>insert reference to company going out of business and bricking the device here</ref> or decides to discontinue production<ref>insert reference to product discontinuation and bricking the device here</ref>. A consumer does not own their product if they are unable to [[Right to repair|repair]] their device themselves due to the company going out of its way to make unauthorized repair impossible<ref>Insert reference to apple doing this. Note: make a page about the Apple repair program being inadequate (change this from reference to direct link preferably. [[Apple authorized repair]]</ref>. A consumer does not truly own their product if poor [[security]] allows unauthorized actors to use the product without permission. Any of these problems will reduce the degree to which consumers own their products and harm their right to own. Before making any purchase consider how much of it is actually yours.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Positive practices]]
[[Category:Articles in need of additional work]]

Click-to-cancel

2025-01-27T05:15:19Z

CATalyst:

The '''click-to-cancel''' (CtC) rule is a [[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC) rule which requires that subscription services make it as easy to cancel the service as it was to sign up.<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring</ref> This is designed to combat an anti-consumer practice, where a subscription service makes it very easy to sign up for a service, but requires the customer to jump through hoops to cancel the subscription. The law has been finalized, but does not come into effect until May 14, 2025.<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-6</ref>

The rule prohibits the following:<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/NegOptions-1page-Oct2024-v2.pdf</ref><ref name=":0">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-11-15/pdf/2024-25534.pdf</ref>

*to misrepresent any material fact made while marketing using a negative option feature
*to fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a negative option feature
*to fail to obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the negative option feature before charging the consumer
*to fail to provide a simple mechanism to cancel the negative option feature and immediately halt charges

A "negative-option feature" is defined by the FTC as "a provision in an offer or agreement to sell or provide any goods or services 'under which the customer’s silence or failure to take an affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller as acceptance of the offer'".<ref name=":0" /> In other words, it is a feature of a service, where once a subscription is initiated, the customer will be continue to be billed until they actively cancel the subscription.

The click-to-cancel rule is not limited to electronic services, as the name might suggest. It includes, but is not limited to "Interactive Electronic Media, telephone, print, and in-person transactions."<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/15/2024-25534/negative-option-rule#sectno-citation-425.1</ref> The cancellation mechanism must be "at least as simple as consent".<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1164</ref> The customer may not be required to interact with a representative, whether a real human or a chat bot, if the customer was not required to do so when they signed up for the service.<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1166</ref> For services which were signed up for in-person, the seller must allow cancellation online or over the phone.<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-25534/p-1168</ref>

==Examples of abuse==

===Gym memberships===
Gym memberships are a notorious example of being significantly more difficult to cancel than they were to sign up for. While some states, such as California<ref>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2863&showamends=false</ref> already had laws analogous to CtC, gym locations outside of those locations have continued to make it easy to sign up, yet difficult to cancel.

====Planet Fitness====
Prior to state-level laws, Planet Fitness's FAQ stated that "You can fill out a cancellation form at the front desk of your home club, or send a letter (preferably via certified mail) to your club requesting cancellation. Memberships can’t, unfortunately, be cancelled by email or phone"<ref>https://www.planetfitness.com/about-planet-fitness/customer-service/membership-faqs</ref> despite allowing online signups. As of Jan 18, 2025, its terms state "our cancellation process may vary from club to club", and that "Some members may also be eligible to cancel their membership online based on their membership type and the location of their home club."<ref>https://archive.ph/XSG0Q</ref>

====LA Fitness====
In a similar vein, LA Fitness's current policy states that "via your online account or as may otherwise be provided in your agreement (for example, depending on your state of enrollment, you may be able to cancel by email)", but previously stated that they "recommend you mail the notice by certified mail and keep a record for your files. Or, you can deliver the notice directly to the Operations Manager at the nearest LA Fitness facility between 9AM and 5PM on Monday through Friday."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20210616083544/https://lafitness.com/Pages/MembershipQuestions.aspx#</ref>

===Free-to-pay===
"Free-to-pay" is a technical term for free trials with a negative-option feature.<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1598063/negative_option_policy_statement-10-22-2021-tobureau.pdf</ref> In many cases, rather than providing a free trial with no strings attached, and only billing the customer if they decide to sign up, the vendor collects payment information as a prerequisite of the free trial, and automatically bills the customer if they fail to affirmatively cancel the trial (a negative-option feature).

While it does not outright prohibit this practice, the click-to-cancel rule partially alleviates these issues by requiring clear disclosures and consent. According to state AGs, "advertisements for free-to-pay conversion offers often lure consumers by promising a 'free' benefit while failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose future payment obligations".<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-83</ref> The FTC also states that:<ref>https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-07035/p-87</ref><blockquote>Other studies reveal similar trends. TINA noted the FBI's internet Crime Complaint Center recorded a rise in complaints about free trial offers, growing from 1,738 in 2015 to 2,486 in 2017, with losses totaling more than $15 million. Similarly, a 2019 Bankrate.com survey cited by NCL found that 59% of consumers have signed up for “free trials” that automatically converted into a recurring payment obligation “against their will.” In NCL's view, these data point to “a troubling, and costly problem for American consumers.” </blockquote>

===Adobe===
[[Adobe]] allegedly "trapped customers into year-long subscriptions through hidden early termination fees and numerous cancellation hurdles", according to the FTC.<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling</ref> Some of their plans are confusing "annual paid monthly" plans, in which the customer receives a discount as if they had signed up for an annual subscription, but are billed monthly. The FTC alleges that they did not prominently disclose the early termination fee associated with these plans, which is half of the remaining monthly payments if the consumer cancels before the annual subscription runs its course. The complaint also alleges that the cancellation process is difficult and costly:<blockquote>In addition to failing to disclose the ETF to consumers when they subscribe, the complaint also alleges that Adobe uses the ETF to ambush consumers to deter them from cancelling their subscriptions. The complaint also alleges that Adobe’s cancellation processes are designed to make cancellation difficult for consumers. When consumers have attempted to cancel their subscription on the company’s website, they have been forced to navigate numerous pages in order to cancel.When consumers reach out to Adobe’s customer service to cancel, they encounter resistance and delay from Adobe representatives. Consumers also experience other obstacles, such as dropped calls and chats, and multiple transfers. Some consumers who thought they had successfully cancelled their subscription reported that the company continued to charge them until discovering the charges on their credit card statements.</blockquote>

====Brigit====
Brigit is a cash-advance app. The FTC complaint alleges that the company "used manipulative design tricks to create a confusing and misleading cancellation process that made it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions."<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/11/ftc-sends-more-17-million-consumers-harmed-brigits-deceptive-claims-junk-fees-confusing-cancellation</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Positive practices]]

Talk:Positive practices

2025-01-27T05:14:51Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page Talk:Positive practices to Category talk:Positive practices: setting up category for including relevant articles

Have marked this as irrelevant, because unfortunately this is a topic which seems too wide-ranging and vague for the wiki, as well as exceptionally prone to brigading by those wishing to promote their own products. There are too many good products in the world to list them all in one page. The Q&A in the [[Mission statement]] describes the only scenario in which we imagine products being mentioned as 'alternatives' in a positive light.

Depending on further discussion, it will probably be deleted.

- Keith

== I don't know how wiki pages or discussion pages work ==

I don't know how wiki pages or discussion pages work

Okay So I'm guessing I can respond in this field?

Thank you for the moderation Keith. I understand the caution on opening the field on company endorsements. I was editing the page with more of my intentions. I saved it way too early not knowing it would publish it, I thought it was more akin to saving my changes locally. If you're able to see the changes made I'm more trying to educate not which companies are good but rather things to consider when making purchases. I still don't have it fully fleshed out, I was about to take a break.

I do confess this page isn't 100 percent on the mission statement, however I'm not positive it's fully irrelevant. I firmly believe people visiting this wiki to be educated on what anti-consumer practices companies have enacted will ponder what can be done about it. Well... I hope so at least?

I know this wiki is still fresh, so I guess something to consider going forward: What action/reaction does CAT want to endorse, if any? It may be helpful for future moderation to establish this and clarify it within the editorial guideline.

PLURR

- LettucePie

:Don't worry, I'm only just figuring out how talk pages work too lol. Apologies for coming on harshly initially, and I can see from your subsequent edits that I misinterpreted the intent of the article based on its initial wording, and I think that this potentially has the makings of a good Theme article (or even a category of theme articles!). I've removed the relevancy notice, and I look forward to seeing where it goes! Later we might have a discussion over where the relevancy line is drawn (like maybe it's fine to say 'these practices are good' but framing it as a buyer's guide is a bit much? idk) but for now it would be great to see what it turns into! Again, sorry for coming on so harshly so soon after the creation of the page. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 23:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Positive practices

2025-01-27T05:14:51Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page Positive practices to Category:Positive practices: setting up category for including relevant articles

This page aims to provide an outline of what types of products to invest in, in hopes of avoiding the pains potentially experienced by companies enacting poor consumer behaviors. While the main goal of this wiki is to articulate all instances where this doesn't happen, this page assists as an escape that may benefit you (the reader) and the overarching goal. The companies making anti-consumer decisions are primarily driven by the goal of capital and financial gain, so by re-allocating investments away from them to better options the incentive to enact those negative policies lessens.

==Things to watch out for==

===One-time purchase vs. subscription plan===
Subscription plans are usually cost-efficient in the short term, benefiting consumers who are unsure on a product and want to try it out. Many services exist exclusively under a subscription model and operate sensibly. One-time purchases are typically designed to operate cleanly and effectively for an extended period of time.

====Considerations for subscription plans====

*Does this service update frequently or at least within the subscription timeframe?
*How long will I be needing this service, and will it be compatible with me for that amount of time?

====Considerations for one-time purchases====

*Will I need this for more than a single month (or subscription period)?
*How soon will this product become redundant or outdated? Is it an annual subscription in disguise?

===Offline product vs. online services for digital goods===
Services that run exclusively online innately have more control over how their product operates and are received. This control can lead to changes in the product that can be improved, but can also introduce incompatibilities. Digital goods that are completely operational offline allow the consumer to decide how long those goods will be used. As long as the downloaded product can be stored and correctly rendered, it has no expiration.

====Considersations for online services====

*Is this product made for online connectivity and interaction?
**Example: Online social games such as ''World of Warcraft''
*Is this product more secure online?
*How likely am I to maintain an internet connection to this service?
*Can this service alter itself into an incompatible state? Can this service remove functionality that I need?

====Considerations for offline products====

*Will I be able to effectively download and store this?
*Does it have any dependencies, and can those dependencies become redundant?
**Example: Products designed for a limited set of operating systems that may become outdated

===Source availability===
Oftentimes companies will not provide or [[security through obscurity|actively obscure]] details about how a product works. This exacerbates the potential pitfalls mentioned above, but when information is provided it can eliminate many of them.

====Considerations for physical goods====

*Does the product provide schematics?
*Are parts available?
**This helps product longevity by making repair easier, regardless of who does it.
*Are there anti-repair measures in place?

====Considerations for digital goods====

*Is the source code available?
**This can allow patches if unwanted updates are pushed or support is dropped.
*Are there [[DRM]] measures in place?

[[Category:Common terms]]

Game-of-telephone privacy policy

2025-01-27T05:13:26Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}
{{incomplete}}
When a consumer reviews a [[privacy policy]], this privacy policy is supposed to inform the consumer what data will be collected, and how the data will be used. A '''[[wikipedia:Telephone_game|game-of-telephone]] privacy policy''' constitutes a situation whereby a consumer's agreement with an app developer may be different between the app developer's agreement with a third party. For instance:

# Third party says that data collected using their SDK can be used to determine insurance rates by insurance providers.
# Third party licenses SDK to app developer who agrees to these terms.
# App developer says to app user that application collects location data just to provide me in-app services & that it may be shared with third parties.
# App developer never discloses to app user that collected data will be used to determine app user's insurance rates.
# App developer does not meaningfully disclose relationship with third party in their terms of service.

This is akin to me agreeing with my friend James that we may engage in violent behavior. You become friends with my friend James. Therefore, as a result of your friendship with James, it becomes implied that '''''you have agreed to violent behavior.'''''

An excellent example of this would be the relationship between [[Arity]] (a business that sells data-collection SDKs), the mobile apps that use Arity SDKs, and the user of those mobile apps, mentioned in the [[Allstate Arity driver data theft]] case.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

Post-purchase EULA modification

2025-01-27T05:12:38Z

CATalyst:

Retroactive policy enforcement

2025-01-27T05:12:04Z

CATalyst:

Retroactively amended purchase

2025-01-27T05:11:12Z

CATalyst:

False advertising

2025-01-27T05:10:00Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}

False advertising is an illegal business strategy where a consumer is lied to with the intention that it increases the probably that they will purchase a product.

==Special cases==
These cases are special in that they feature false advertising and may be indicative of a greater systemic issue without necessarily being illegal.

===False advertising in sales===
False advertising is not necessarily a problem of the producer itself, a vast number of third-party sellers also handle the distribution and redistribution of products. Producers are only responsible for their own sales in regards to providing sufficient accurate product information. Focusing on the marketplaces themselves exposes significant problems with how marketplaces are moderated and how they adapt to changes in product information.

====Poor moderation====
Poor moderation that the marketplace platform itself inadequately moderates its seller's content, resulting in potentially incorrect or inadequate presentation of a product's information. Sellers may provide inadequate information for buyers, without any malicious intent which results in harm to both parties. Marketplaces should have strong moderation practices to prevent false advertising from consumers who may simply be unaware of their mistake.

====Poor self-moderation====
Poor self moderation is the same as poor moderation except that the marketplace platform itself inadequately moderates its own content, resulting in potentially incorrect or inadequate presentation of a product's information. In this instance, all blame is placed on the marketplace itself for the oversight.

==== '''Retroactive sale falsification''' ====
Retroactive sale falsification occurs when a product listing suddenly contains misinformation due to changes in the product outside of the control of the seller. This can occur commonly with internet connected products, especially physical products dependent on remote servers, if a server goes offline it may cause features of the product to cease functioning. Retroactive sale falsification is special in that false advertising does occur but not due to the fault of the seller at least initially. It is arguable that blame can be put on the seller after significant time has passed and especially if there is evidence that they had become aware of changes

==== '''A case of all three''' ====

An interesting case of a potential sale falsification occurred with the [[Spotify Car Thing]] (SCT) on a site known as "[[StockX]]"<ref name=":0">[https://archive.is/50fMR "Spotify Car Thing YX5H6679"] - archive.is - accessed 2025-01-25</ref>. StockX creates a page for each product it receives in stock and allows anyone to sell the product anonymously by selling it to StockX, StockX then resells the product after confirming its functioning. As of January 25th, 2025 this site currently uses this description for the SCT:{{Quote|The Spotify Car Thing was made available in February 2022. The release includes updated software allowing customers to see incoming calls on their mobile devices immediately. The ability to exercise control over various media-playing applications is one of the most notable features offered by the Spotify Car Thing.

The Spotify Car Thing is comparable in size to some mobile devices. They refer to it as a "smart player" on their website. The device features voice control, a touchscreen, a selection knob, a large button labeled back, four preset buttons, and one button labeled settings and mute. It is attached to the HVAC vent, CD tray, and the sticker supplied in the package.

The Spotify Car Thing was made available on February 22, 2022, at a retail price of $80.}}Notably, the StockX page does not mention that the SCT had stopped working due to [[discontinuation bricking]], the product being discontinued or bricked is not mentioned once throughout the entire product page. Unfortunately CAT does not have the ability to confirm the exact moment the page was published but we do know this:

#The first sale of an SCT on StockX occurred [[:File:Spotify car thing stockx sales data backup.png|2024-09-09 at 5:54am]]: the Spotify car thing was quietly discontinued<ref>NOT YET CONFIRMED! This is according to google's AI which is historically inaccurate.</ref> 13 months before in August of 2023. At this point it is still acceptable for StockX to have misinformation as it is realistic they could be completely unaware.
#The first sale of an SCT on StockX after Spotify official announced the planned discontinuation bricking on May 5th 2024 was made [[:File:Spotify car thing stockx sales data backup2.png|2024-05-23 at 12:47pm]]. After this point StockX should have edited the product description to protect consumers.
#The first sale of an SCT on StockX after the discontinuation bricking incident truly occurred on was on [[:File:Spotify car thing stockx sales data backup2.png|2025-01-07 at 1:47am]]. At this point StockX has failed to protect the consumer.

===== How this case demonstrates all three cases =====
#'''Poor moderation''' - StockX demonstrated poor moderation by allowing bricked SCTs to be sold, had StockX thoroughly inspected the user delivered product themselves as they claim<ref name=":0" /> they would have discovered that it no longer functions; this in of itself justifies updating the product description.
#'''Poor self-moderation -''' StockX demonstrated poor self-moderation when they did not update the page after the planned discontinuation bricking was announced. It is possible that they had never learned of this, there is no
#'''Retroactive sale falsification -''' Spotify's decision to discontinue the product resulted in StockX's product information suddenly becoming incorrect, not by the fault of StockX.

The purpose of the StockX example is to demonstrate that false advertising does occur in marketplaces and that determining who is to blame can be difficult to establish. While it is undeniable that StockX did not update the page, it is difficult to determine how much of it was a moderation failure versus a genuine lack of knowledge caused by the sudden decision by Spotify.

==References==
[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Articles in need of additional work]]
[[Category:Articles requiring expansion]]
<references />

Hidden EULA language

2025-01-27T05:09:38Z

CATalyst:

"EULA roofie" describes the practice of hiding contentious terms within an [[End-User License Agreement]] (EULA). The term applies to situations where such terms, if made clear upfront, might cause a customer to second-guess their purchase. The term was coined by consumer rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]][source?].

This term highlights the unethical business practice of "manufacturing consent" for terms which a reasonable and informed customer might reject. It also emphasizes the erosion of informed consent through shaming and conformity.

By hiding contentious or unconscionable terms in dense legal documents, manufacturers exploit:

#the consumer's lack of proficiency in understanding legal documents, and
#the impracticality of reading long documents in order to meet one's basic human needs.

The "EULA roofie" applies to individuals and corporations that utilize these practices to secure and manufacture consent under these false pretenses.

According to Rossmann, just as drugging someone ("roofying") to secure agreement is indefensible, so too is the act of concealing ethically or morally questionable terms in the fine print of a contract. The term "EULA roofie" attempts to draw a greater degree of societal scorn, scrutiny, and condemnation towards these actions, as they are seen at best as a minor legal nuisance rather than a disregard for informed consent and human rights.

==Core Concept==
The term "EULA roofie" describes three key deceptive practices:

#Burying unattractive terms deep within an End User License Agreement (while avoiding mention of them in marketing materials and customer-facing interfaces).
#Making the full terms impractical or impossible for the customer to meaningfully review.
#Pointing to the End User License Agreement as a justification for unpopular practices.

==Notable Examples==

===Sony PlayStation Store===
Sony prominently displays ''"PURCHASE"'' buttons for digital content but buries a redefinition of the word "purchase" in Section 10.1 of their Terms of Service:<ref>PLAYSTATIONTM NETWORK TERMS OF SERVICE AND USER AGREEMENT, December 30th, 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20231230163548/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/</ref>

<blockquote>"Use of the terms 'own,' 'ownership', 'purchase,' 'sale,' 'sold,' 'sell,' 'rent' or 'buy'… does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership…"</blockquote>

This became an issue in 2023 when Sony and Discovery removed previously "purchased" content from users' libraries, citing terms hidden in their service agreement.<ref>Playstation Video Content: Legal Update Notice https://web.archive.org/web/20231203150040/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/</ref>

Placing disclaimers such as "We may take away and remove television and movies you bought & paid for at any time, because purchase doesn't mean purchase anymore" next to the "Add to cart" button would understandably negatively affect sales. Therefore, Sony buries this information on page 21 of their Terms of Service.

'''Valve Steam Store'''

Valve does something identical to Sony in the it says you are "PURCHASING" a game but redefined what the word "purchase" means in Section 1 of their terms of service. [3]

# 1. LIMITED LICENSE; RESTRICTIONS AND OWNERSHIP - this Agreement does not give you any right to obtain reissues or replacements of the Game at any time and ZeniMax [valve] is not obliged to supply software updates, upgrades, or expansions for the Game, or even to operate or continue to support the Game for an indefinite period.
# Valve may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Game at any time and Valve may also impose limits on certain features or restrict your access to parts or all of the Game without notice or liability.

This is essentially saying your 'ownership' amounts to nothing, as they say in the EULA they can discontinue the game you purchased at at any time they wish. You are merely leasing a game when you 'purchase' a game from steam. There will be a lot of blow back on this because most people think they own their steam games but there is no argument to be made when it says right their in their EULA that you in face only own it for only they amount of time Valve decides to support it. At any time, and for no reason other than they want to, the game you purchased will no longer be playable.

In this same EULA they clearly state they can modify the terms and conditions at any time and you are responsible for keeping up with the new terms.

[3] footnote - https://store.steampowered.com/eula/1716740_eula_0

===Smart Appliance Data Collection & Third-Party Data Sharing===
[[File:LG ThinQ app terms of service part 1.webp|alt=LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine|thumb|LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine]]
[[File:LG ThinQ app TOS.webp|alt=LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine: part 2 of 3.|thumb|LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine: part 2 of 3.]]
[[File:LG ThinQ app terms of service from July 2024, for use of an LG smart washing machine- part 3 of 3..webp|thumb]]

LG Electronics (among others) require users to accept extensive terms of service and privacy policies to use the "smart" features on home appliances, such as washing machines.

While the "smart" features may have time-saving benefits, the time required to actually read and decipher these documents (often 3+ hours, especially for non-tech-savvy users) negates any time-saving benefits of the smart features themselves. This makes meaningful informed consent impractical.

A consumer has to read the complete Privacy Policy (see attached images below) to learn that LG collects their personal data and shares it with their advertising partners. Futhermore, this Privacy Policy is only shown to the customer once they have bought the LG product.

==Consumer Impact==
The practice undermines informed consent in digital transactions by:

*Using lengthy documents (often 50+ pages) to hide terms that deprive the consumer of their privacy and their rights.
*Employing complex legal language to obscure the real meaning of agreements.
*Placing important information deep within documents where it is unlikely to be found.
*Presenting one meaning of terms (like "purchase") in the user interface while legally defining them differently in hidden terms.

==Legal Context==
While EULAs and Terms of Service are legally binding documents, the "EULA roofie" concept challenges their legitimacy by highlighting how they may violate principles of contract law such as:

*Meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties).
*Good-faith dealing.
*Reasonable notice of terms.
*Unconscionability (terms so unfair they shock the conscience).

==Consumer Protection Response==
The concept has been used in advocacy for:

*Plain-language requirements in consumer agreements.
*Prominent disclosure of significant terms.
*Reform of digital ownership rights.

==Resources==

*[https://tosdr.org/en/ TOSDR] &emdash; Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies
*[https://tosback.org/ TOSBack] &emdash; Helps consumers to understand and review terms of service policies

==References==

<references />

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

Dark pattern

2025-01-27T05:09:11Z

CATalyst:

{{Incomplete}}

'''Dark patterns''' refer to deceptive design practices used in websites, applications, or digital interfaces to manipulate users into making decisions that benefit the organization implementing them, often at the expense of the user’s best interests. Coined by user-experience (UX) specialist Harry Brignull in 2010, the term has since become a critical focus in consumer advocacy, as these practices undermine transparency and user autonomy.

===Types and examples of dark patterns===
Dark patterns can be found across multiple industries and platforms. While some examples overlap or share common tactics, all rely on manipulation and deception to achieve their goals. Listed below are notable types:

*'''[[EULA Roofie|EULA roofie]]''': Critical [[End-user license agreement|end-user license agreements]] (EULAs) are hidden or presented only after purchase, making it difficult for users to review terms before committing. These agreements may be located inside packaging, under a lid, or displayed upon initial activation, limiting informed consent. This tactic overlaps with "forced continuity" and "roach motel" practices.

*'''Forced continuity''': Users are charged for a subscription or service after a free trial without adequate warning or an easy cancellation option.

*'''Roach motel''': Users can easily sign up for a service or subscription but will find it extremely difficult to cancel.

*'''Hidden costs''': Additional charges are revealed only at the final stages of a transaction, after users have already invested significant time.

*'''Sneak into basket''': Items or services are automatically added to a shopping cart without explicit consent.

*'''Confirmshaming''': Users are guilt-tripped into taking a particular action by framing alternative options unfavorably (e.g., "No, I don’t want to save money").

*'''Privacy Zuckering''': Tricking users into sharing more personal information than intended, often through misleading privacy settings or pre-checked consent boxes.

*'''Disguised ads''': Ads are designed to look like native content or legitimate interface elements, tricking users into clicking.

*'''Trick questions''': Questions are confusingly or misleadingly phrasing to elicit unintended responses from users.

*'''[[Fear of missing out]] (FOMO)''': The use of time-limited availability to instill a sense of urgency in users, causing them to devote more time or money in order to acquire a product, service, or digital item. This tactic overlaps with "misleading scarcity message" practices.

*'''Misleading scarcity messages''': Phrases like "Only 3 left in stock!" or "Offer expires in 10 minutes" are displayed to create a false sense of urgency, even when the product is widely available.

*'''Friend spam''': Users are encouraged to share personal information about their friends or contacts, which is then used for unsolicited marketing.

*'''Default-settings exploitation''': Options that benefit the company are pre-selected, such as extensive data sharing or auto-renewal of subscriptions.

*'''Obstruction''': Simple tasks are made unnecessarily complicated, such as requiring users to navigate multiple steps to cancel a subscription or delete an account.

===Why dark patterns are problematic===
Dark patterns are more than just unethical design choices. They have real-world consequences for consumers and society. Key concerns include:

*'''Erosion of trust''': Users lose confidence in platforms that manipulate their choices, undermining long-term loyalty.
*'''Financial loss''': Consumers often incur unexpected charges or fees, because of deceptive practices.
*'''Privacy violations''': Trickery in consent-gathering leads to the misuse or overcollection of personal data.
*'''Exploitation of vulnerability''': Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected, such as children or those with limited digital literacy.

===Regulatory efforts===
Governments and consumer-protection organizations are increasingly scrutinizing dark patterns. Key developments include:

*'''[[California Privacy Rights Act]] (CPRA)''': Prohibits the use of deceptive designs to obtain consent for data collection.
*'''[[EU General Data Protection Regulation]] (GDPR)''': Mandates that consent be informed and freely given, effectively targeting privacy zuckering.
*'''[[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC)''': In the U.S., the FTC has taken action against companies employing dark patterns, including fines and enforcement actions.

===Combating dark patterns===
Consumers and designers can take steps to identify and combat dark patterns by:

*'''Raising awareness''': Educating users about common dark patterns helps them make informed decisions.
*'''Transparent design principles''': Advocating for ethical design practices that prioritize user autonomy and clarity.
*'''Policy advocacy''': Supporting stronger regulatory frameworks to hold organizations accountable for deceptive practices.
*'''Third-party tools''': Using browser extensions and tools designed to block or highlight manipulative elements.

===Conclusion===
Dark patterns undermine the principles of fair commerce and user empowerment, exploiting human psychology for profit. As awareness grows, collaboration among consumers, designers, and regulators will be essential to curb their prevalence and ensure digital spaces remain transparent and trustworthy.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

Category:Anti-consumer practices

2025-01-27T05:07:56Z

CATalyst:

[[Category:Wiki_root]]
These are a list of categories that encompass the core types of anti-consumer practices this wiki documents.

Bait-and-switch

2025-01-27T05:07:02Z

CATalyst:

'''Bait-and-switch''' is the action of advertising goods that are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods.<ref>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bait-and-switch</ref> The measures against this practice depend a lot in the consumer laws in each country, but it is usually considered under unfair and deceptive transactions.

==Legality==
In the United States, the [[Federal Trade Commission|Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC) has issued a Notice that it has determined that bait and switch sales practices are unfair or deceptive trade practices, and violate the FTC Act.<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/penalty-offenses/bait-switch</ref><ref>https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Bait-Switch.pdf</ref> And in December 2024, the Commission announced a "Bipartisan Rule Banning Junk Ticket and Hotel Fees", in an effort to end the hidden fees when buying tickets or accomodation:<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/12/federal-trade-commission-announces-bipartisan-rule-banning-junk-ticket-hotel-fees</ref><blockquote>"The Junk Fees Rule will ensure that pricing information is presented in a timely, transparent, and truthful way to consumers of live-event tickets and short-term lodging, two industries whose pricing practices the Commission has studied in particular. Consumers searching for hotels or vacation rentals or seats at a show or sporting event will no longer be surprised by a pile of “resort,” “convenience,” or “service” fees inflating the advertised price. By requiring up-front disclosure of total price including fees, the rule will make comparison shopping easier, resulting in savings for consumers and leveling the competitive playing field."

FTC, Press Release. December 17, 2024</blockquote>The aim of this rule is to force companies and sellers of these goods to be more transparent.

==Recent cases==

*FTC Sends More Than $1.1 Million in Refunds to Consumers Deceived by Bait-and-Switch Ads for LASIK Vision Correction Procedures.<ref>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/ftc-sends-more-11-million-refunds-consumers-deceived-bait-switch-ads-lasik-vision-correction</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Post-purchase EULA modification]]
* [[Retroactively amended purchase]]
* [[Retroactive policy enforcement]]

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

Discontinuation bricking

2025-01-27T05:04:54Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}

'''Discontinuation bricking''' occurs when a product is "bricked" — no longer functional — because the producer has discontinued it. Discontinuation bricking almost exclusively occurs in products that require a connection to a remote server hosted by the producer. The product may become bricked if the company decides to shut down services or if the company goes out of business entirely, which is a significant harm to consumer rights.

==Warning signs of discontinuation bricking==
Discontinuation bricking is usually an unintended consequence of a remote service shutting down that the product depends on for complete functionality. The risk of discontinuation bricking occurring can be detected beforehand by observing warning signs, such as:

#'''Product requires an internet connection to a remote server:''' if a product requires connection to a remote server for functionality, there is a risk that the company may shut down the server and brick some function, if not all functions of the product. These connections may be necessary because:
##'''Product requires remote authorization:''' product only works if you can receive authorization from an authorization server. If the authorization server shuts down, login will become impossible. An unusual example being the Spotify Car Thing which stopped functioning after Spotify unauthorized the Car Thing from interacting with the Spotify App API.
##'''Product has features dependent on remote sources:''' product may brick if it is unable to access remote information because of server outages.
#'''Product depends on a phone application to work:''' updates to the app may remove support for the discontinued product. An example being the [[Spotify Car Thing]] which stopped functioning after Spotify unauthorized the Car Thing from interacting with the Spotify App API.<ref>[https://www.motortrend.com/news/spotify-car-thing-music-streaming-device-discontinued/ "Spotify's Oddball In-Car Music Device Is Getting Bricked. Turns Out There's an App For That."] - motortrend.com - accessed 2025-01-25</ref>
#'''Product requires physical input on a regular basis:''' as an example, [[HP Inc.]] printer ink has a [[Digital rights management|DRM]] that forces consumers to exclusively use HP ink, and does not allow third-party cartridges. If HP goes out of business or decides to stop producing their ink cartridges, any printer depending upon it will become bricked, '''effectively discontinuing the printer''' even if not explicitly stated.

==How discontinuation bricking impacts consumer rights==
Discontinuation bricking is similar to [[planned obsolescence]] in which it harms the consumer and the environment by making a product they paid for stop functioning, which not only is anti-consumer but also contributes to E-waste.

===How discontinuation bricking contributes to E-waste===
Discontinuation bricking will inevitably generate waste given that the product is no longer functional, and consumers will be forced to discard the product.

===Loss of ownership===
Discontinuation bricking and the possibility that a product may brick itself in the future due to discontinuation, directly harms the ability for a consumer to own their product, as a consumer does not truly own their product if the product is at risk of being bricked and no longer functional.

===Dependence on third-party bypasses===
After a product has been bricked, a consumer may wish to repair their product and return it back to a functioning state. De-bricking a product is not impossible but can be difficult depending on the severity of the problem. Consumers will inevitably look to third-parties for methods to bypass the bricking which may open the user to [[security]] and [[safety]] risks. Bypasses may end up being expensive, with more complicated server-dependent products needing potentially complicated server infrastructure.

===Resale falsification===
Products are often resold on the internet, and may be put on sale before a discontinuation bricking occurs with valid information but become invalidated afterwards causing [[false advertising]]. This has many implications:

#Sellers may be completely unaware of the discontinuation bricking and will continue selling their product, hurting seller reputation once the product becomes bricked and no longer functions afterwards.
#Buyers may be completely unaware of the discontinuation bricking and will buy the product, only to have it not function and harming the buyer.
#Customers may learn about the discontinuation and decide to sell the product without providing adequate details, even without any malicious intent.

===Methods to avoid discontinuation bricking===

#'''Avoid internet and smart products:''' if the product has to connect to an external server to work, the product is vulnerable to being bricked.
#'''Use [[Open source|open source/schematic]] products:''' open source/schematic products are inherently resistant to discontinuation bricking as the consumer is typically given everything they need to resolve outages themselves.
#'''Buy products that contractually guarantee source/schematic release on discontinuation:''' if a company decides to include a legally binding agreement to provide source and schematics, this is usually a good sign that they are willing to accept blame for discontinuation bricking and take action to alleviate it.

==Examples==

*[[Spotify Car Thing]]

==References==
[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Articles in need of additional work]]
[[Category:Articles under development]]
<references />

Digital rights management

2025-01-27T05:04:26Z

CATalyst:

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

[[wikipedia:Digital_rights_management|'''Digital rights management''']] (DRM) broadly refers to any kind of access control technology that is used to deliberately restrict the usage of media content or devices after the sale. It is typically used by a seller to prevent unauthorized distribution or replication of their product. Implementations of DRM can range from very simple (such as a basic disc check) to extremely complex executable binary protection (such as Denuvo).

{{Quote|DRM creates a damaged good; it prevents you from doing what would be possible without it. – Defective by Design<ref>https://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm</ref>}}

==DRM in video content==
Attempting to protect video content is one of the most common uses of DRM. The idea of using copy protection on video content predates the term "DRM", such as the "Automatic Gain Control" requirement in VCRs, to enforce the "Macrovision" copy protection scheme.<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201#k_1_A 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems, K.1.A.i]</ref><ref>[https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/1999-00/dmca-2k/macrovision.html Macrovision Demystified], Stanford CS181. </ref> This resulted in VCRs not being able to record commercial VHS tapes and DVDs.

DVDs also feature the "Content Scramble System," which was cracked.<ref>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/FrankStevenson/mail1.txt</ref> Later, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray would implement the Advanced Access Content System.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20070302130221/http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/specs091/AACS_Spec_Common_0.91.pdf
</ref> The AACS key was similarly cracked, and the AACS Licensing Administrator began to issue cease-and-desist letters to websites to which the key was posted.<ref>http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=03218</ref> Another form of Blu-Ray DRM, called [[Cinavia]], exists, and it is known for its self-destructive tendencies.<ref>https://www.anandtech.com/show/5693/cinavia-drm-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-blurays-selfdestruction/2</ref>

To attempt to prevent ripping video via a capture card, modern displays, optical disc players, and computers use the High-Definition Content Protection system to encrypt display signals.<ref>https://www.digital-cp.com/about_dcp</ref> For example, [[Netflix 4K Stream Quality Controversy|Netflix will refuse]] to stream content at the full resolution that the customer has paid for if the user is not using an HDCP-enabled video card and display.

==DRM in audio content==
DRM's strangest inclusion was within audio content, which was not quite commonly put to use due to audio's analog nature compared to video and software, which made it questionable to be capable of blocking the replication of the data. The most notable application of audio DRM was [[MediaMax]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaMax</ref>, which essentially functioned as malware to combat simply playing these audio discs on [[Windows]] and [[MacOS]] operating systems. There was also the less-notable [[Extended Copy Protection]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Copy_Protection</ref> (XCP) DRM, however it did leave [[Sony]] in hot water<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal</ref>, dubbing this form of DRM also as the Sony Rootkit

==DRM in software==
Most in the DRM discussion often correlate the usage of DRM to the protection of software in some form, from the simple product key, to the infamous [[Denuvo]] DRM. Historically, DRM started off with more simple physical techniques; decoder wheels and LensLok<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenslok</ref>. The efficacy of these systems varied, and many cracking groups simply found ways around this system, especially since 2nd-hand copies of software that used these primitive forms of DRM could easily become lost or damaged, or worse, not even function with some forms of hardware.<ref>https://www.eurogamer.net/banging-the-drm-article?page=2</ref> This has sparked essentially a game of cat and mouse that continues to fester especially for the gaming community to this day.

==Issues with DRM==
DRM, by definition, is designed to make content less compatible with devices. This means that there is an elevated chance of a software or hardware product refusing to play content due to buggy or overly-restrictive DRM. For example, with the aforementioned Netflix HDCP requirement, it is not enough for the display where you are going to watch the content to support HDCP - all monitors connected to the system must support it.<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1avkwtb/netflix_requires_all_monitors_to_be_hdcp_22_how/</ref><ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/mam2l9/how_do_i_get_netflix_working_at_4k_on_my_second/</ref><ref>https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23931</ref> This means that if you have a multi-monitor setup on your PC, you cannot use an older but perfectly working monitor as a secondary screen, without breaking Netflix's DRM.

Such requirements are not always clearly disclosed. If they are disclosed, they are often buried in a ToS, or in the case of Netflix, require you to follow several links around the FAQ pages. Furthermore, some content may surreptitiously install DRM without the knowledge or consent of the user, such as in the Sony Rootkit scandal.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20150317040653/http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2005/10/31/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights-management-gone-too-far.aspx</ref> Such software may contain exploits that can compromise the security of the user's PC.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20061116191907/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/11/virus_writers_exploit_sony_ant.html</ref>

DRM in video games is often implemented in such an intrusive manner that the game takes longer to load, and reduces framerate in the game.<ref>https://80.lv/articles/testing-reveals-games-with-denuvo-launch-up-to-four-times-slower/</ref>

DRM failures can also come as a surprise. For example, with a YouTube Premium subscription, you can "Download videos to watch offline," but such videos are only available for 48 hours if you do not have an internet connection.<ref>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6141269</ref> This is confusing and problematic, as a user might want to download videos if they will know that they will not have an internet connection for a while. They may even take the extra step of turning off their internet connection to ensure that the videos still play offline. Once the 48 hours have expired, however, the user is surprised to find that the videos that they thought they had downloaded for offline consumption actually require an internet connection to work.

===Ineffectiveness of audio and video DRM===
Non-interactive content such as audio and video is nearly impossible to protect from copying. Many HDMI splitters<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/PS3/comments/19dohrh/bypassing_hdcp_in_2024/lbtqiky/</ref> and capture cards<ref>https://old.reddit.com/r/PS3/comments/19dohrh/bypassing_hdcp_in_2024/kj7cu60/
</ref> are capable of decrypting HDCP and copying the video stream. As long as at least one bypass exists at the HDCP level, all streaming content can be trivially ripped.

Audio DRM is even more trivial to bypass, as the audio must be decrypted into a plain analog signal at some point in order to drive the physical speakers or headphones.

===DRM degradation===
The development of some forms of DRM, such as Games For Windows Live<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_for_Windows_%E2%80%93_Live</ref>, are reliant on special processes within some operating systems that end up becoming unsupported or depreciated as time goes on. Legacy [[SecuROM]]-protected titles (released roughly between 1998 and 2005) are notoriously known for not running on operating systems newer than Windows XP<ref>https://www.lucadamico.dev/papers/drms/securom/ArabianNights.pdf</ref><ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20220226230919/http://www.reversing.be/article.php?story=20061015153108847</ref> and for those interested in playing their legitimate copies, have to spend an extensive amount of time merely circumventing the DRM (or otherwise using more illicit methods) just to merely play the games they own.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjkqI7dBDVg</ref>

This DRM degradation has the worst effects for those who own physical licenses to products that they own, since unlike a digital installation, if a physical copy of a game's DRM stops being supported by modern hardware, a developer cannot simply distribute a patch that directly modifies the code on a disc, and online patches cannot last forever.

===Always-online DRM===
Some DRM requires a constant internet connection. While this may make sense in something that inherently requires an internet connection such as a streaming service or multiplayer-only video game, this has also been employed in games with single-player content, rendering the customer unable to use their purchase if they do not have an active internet connection.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/17/diablo-iii-fans-should-stay-angry-about-always-online-drm/</ref> Conversely, if operations are shut down for these services, users even with legitimate pieces of software they may own, and have access to the internet, simply cannot run their games without first needing to hack their games.<ref>https://keowu.re/posts/Rewriting-completely-the-GameSpy-support-from-2000-to-2004-using-Reverse-Engineering-on-EA-and-Bungie-Games/</ref><ref>https://www.slashgear.com/gamespy-shuts-down-may-31-will-your-game-be-affected-04323788/</ref> [[Ubisoft]] has historically been known for server shutdowns and transfers cutting off access to games for many players.<ref>http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/121/1218211p1.html

[https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/121/1218211p1.html Archive]</ref>

==References==
<references />

License euthanasia

2025-01-27T05:03:27Z

CATalyst:

Category:Usury

2025-01-27T05:03:07Z

CATalyst:

Usury is the practice of making loans that may unfairly benefit the lender. The term can include legal violations, such as charging a rate of interest in excess of a maximum rate specified by statutory law. The term can include practices or situations perceived as unfair or immoral from a subjective or interpretive point of view.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

Category:Service Siphoning

2025-01-27T05:01:47Z

CATalyst:

Service Siphoning, as defined in this wiki, is the conversion of traditional-purchase models into service-based or subscription models. Pages that fall under this category are examples of instances of this anti-consumer behavior.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]

Category:Rights Stripping

2025-01-27T05:00:15Z

CATalyst:

Rights Stripping, as defined in this wiki, is the systematic removal or reduction of consumer rights through agreement modifications. Pages that fall under this category are examples of instances of this anti-consumer behavior.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]

Category:License Laundering

2025-01-27T04:59:42Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}
License Laundering, as defined in this wiki, is the undermining of traditional concepts of ownership through systematic changes to license agreements. Pages that fall under this category are examples of instances of this anti-consumer behavior.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]

Category:Legal Lockout

2025-01-27T04:59:06Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}

Legal Lockout, as defined in this wiki, is the implementation of terms that modify users' legal rights or access to legal remedies. Pages that fall under this category are examples of instances of this anti-consumer behavior.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]

Category:Feature Ransom

2025-01-27T04:57:50Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}
{{incomplete}}

Feature Ransom, as defined in this wiki, is when core functionality is restricted or removed unless users accept new terms or conditions. Pages that fall under this category are examples of instances of this anti-consumer behavior.

[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]

Category:Anti Consumer Practices

2025-01-27T04:56:25Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page Category:Anti Consumer Practices to Category:Anti-Consumer Practices: phrasal adjections should be hyphenated

#REDIRECT [[:Category:Anti-Consumer Practices]]

Category:Anti-consumer practices

2025-01-27T04:56:25Z

CATalyst: CATalyst moved page Category:Anti Consumer Practices to Category:Anti-Consumer Practices: phrasal adjections should be hyphenated

[[Category:Wiki_root]]
These are a list of categories, taken from [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Documentation/Core_patterns]], that encompass the core types of anti-consumer practices this wiki documents.

Discontinuation bricking

2025-01-27T04:55:14Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}

'''Discontinuation bricking''' occurs when a product is "bricked" — no longer functional — because the producer has discontinued it. Discontinuation bricking almost exclusively occurs in products that require a connection to a remote server hosted by the producer. The product may become bricked if the company decides to shut down services or if the company goes out of business entirely, which is a significant harm to consumer rights.

==Warning signs of discontinuation bricking==
Discontinuation bricking is usually an unintended consequence of a remote service shutting down that the product depends on for complete functionality. The risk of discontinuation bricking occurring can be detected beforehand by observing warning signs, such as:

#'''Product requires an internet connection to a remote server:''' if a product requires connection to a remote server for functionality, there is a risk that the company may shut down the server and brick some function, if not all functions of the product. These connections may be necessary because:
##'''Product requires remote authorization:''' product only works if you can receive authorization from an authorization server. If the authorization server shuts down, login will become impossible. An unusual example being the Spotify Car Thing which stopped functioning after Spotify unauthorized the Car Thing from interacting with the Spotify App API.
##'''Product has features dependent on remote sources:''' product may brick if it is unable to access remote information because of server outages.
#'''Product depends on a phone application to work:''' updates to the app may remove support for the discontinued product. An example being the [[Spotify Car Thing]] which stopped functioning after Spotify unauthorized the Car Thing from interacting with the Spotify App API.<ref>[https://www.motortrend.com/news/spotify-car-thing-music-streaming-device-discontinued/ "Spotify's Oddball In-Car Music Device Is Getting Bricked. Turns Out There's an App For That."] - motortrend.com - accessed 2025-01-25</ref>
#'''Product requires physical input on a regular basis:''' as an example, [[HP Inc.]] printer ink has a [[Digital rights management|DRM]] that forces consumers to exclusively use HP ink, and does not allow third-party cartridges. If HP goes out of business or decides to stop producing their ink cartridges, any printer depending upon it will become bricked, '''effectively discontinuing the printer''' even if not explicitly stated.

==How discontinuation bricking impacts consumer rights==
Discontinuation bricking is similar to [[planned obsolescence]] in which it harms the consumer and the environment by making a product they paid for stop functioning, which not only is anti-consumer but also contributes to E-waste.

===How discontinuation bricking contributes to E-waste===
Discontinuation bricking will inevitably generate waste given that the product is no longer functional, and consumers will be forced to discard the product.

===Loss of ownership===
Discontinuation bricking and the possibility that a product may brick itself in the future due to discontinuation, directly harms the ability for a consumer to own their product, as a consumer does not truly own their product if the product is at risk of being bricked and no longer functional.

===Dependence on third-party bypasses===
After a product has been bricked, a consumer may wish to repair their product and return it back to a functioning state. De-bricking a product is not impossible but can be difficult depending on the severity of the problem. Consumers will inevitably look to third-parties for methods to bypass the bricking which may open the user to [[security]] and [[safety]] risks. Bypasses may end up being expensive, with more complicated server-dependent products needing potentially complicated server infrastructure.

===Resale falsification===
Products are often resold on the internet, and may be put on sale before a discontinuation bricking occurs with valid information but become invalidated afterwards causing [[false advertising]]. This has many implications:

#Sellers may be completely unaware of the discontinuation bricking and will continue selling their product, hurting seller reputation once the product becomes bricked and no longer functions afterwards.
#Buyers may be completely unaware of the discontinuation bricking and will buy the product, only to have it not function and harming the buyer.
#Customers may learn about the discontinuation and decide to sell the product without providing adequate details, even without any malicious intent.

===Methods to avoid discontinuation bricking===

#'''Avoid internet and smart products:''' if the product has to connect to an external server to work, the product is vulnerable to being bricked.
#'''Use [[Open source|open source/schematic]] products:''' open source/schematic products are inherently resistant to discontinuation bricking as the consumer is typically given everything they need to resolve outages themselves.
#'''Buy products that contractually guarantee source/schematic release on discontinuation:''' if a company decides to include a legally binding agreement to provide source and schematics, this is usually a good sign that they are willing to accept blame for discontinuation bricking and take action to alleviate it.

==Examples==

*[[Spotify Car Thing]]

==References==
[[Category:Anti_Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Articles in need of additional work]]
[[Category:Articles under development]]
<references />

License euthanasia

2025-01-27T04:54:26Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}
{{incomplete}}
“License euthanasia” is the practice of revoking perpetual licenses under the pretext that the company is looking out for the user’s best interest by forcing them to update to a later version. This term was coined by consumer-rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]], who observed that [[Final Draft software activation|Final Draft]]’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanced age” “made it sound like they’re doing the kind thing” by putting old software out of its misery.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV4VDvseIE&t=439s</ref>

<references />

[[Category:Anti_Consumer_Practices]]
[[Category:Common terms]]
[[Category:Rights Stripping]]

User:CATalyst

2025-01-27T00:37:53Z

CATalyst: Created page with "I am a property lawyer with a strong interest in privacy and consumer rights."

I am a property lawyer with a strong interest in privacy and consumer rights.

License euthanasia

2025-01-27T00:28:30Z

CATalyst:

License euthanasia

2025-01-27T00:12:53Z

CATalyst:

{{StubNotice}}
{{incomplete}}

“License euthanasia” is the practice of revoking perpetual licenses — often disabling the ability to use older versions of software and forcing those users to pay additional money to update to a more recent version. The term “euthanasia” was coined by consumer-rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]], who observed that [[Final Draft software activation|Final Draft]]’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanced age” “made it sound like they’re doing the kind thing” by discontinuing it.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV4VDvseIE&t=439s</ref>

[[Category:Common terms]]
<references />

License euthanasia

2025-01-27T00:11:45Z

CATalyst:

License euthanasia

2025-01-27T00:08:35Z

CATalyst: Created page with "{{StubNotice}} {{incomplete}} “License euthanasia” is the practice of ending perpetual licenses — often disabling the ability to use older versions of software and forcing those users to pay additional money to update to a more recent version. The term “euthanasia” was coined by consumer-rights advocate Louis Rossmann, who observed that Final Draft’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanc..."

{{StubNotice}}
{{incomplete}}

“License euthanasia” is the practice of ending perpetual licenses — often disabling the ability to use older versions of software and forcing those users to pay additional money to update to a more recent version. The term “euthanasia” was coined by consumer-rights advocate [[Louis Rossmann]], who observed that [[Final Draft software activation|Final Draft]]’s description of an older version of its software as being “of advanced age” “made it sound like they’re doing the kind thing” by discontinuing it.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV4VDvseIE&t=439s</ref>

==References==

<references />