Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

User:Tpat90

2025-01-31T14:56:51Z

Tpat90:

Mmmyes

Much read

Likes tea, hates humans, does way to much volunteering

{| class="wikitable"
|+Contribution Scores
!Score
!Unique Pages Editted
!Changes
|-
|{{#cscore:tpat90|score}}
|{{#cscore:tpat90|pages}}
|{{#cscore:tpat90|changes}}
|}

Wiki Content Policies

2025-01-30T14:59:00Z

Tpat90: Changed redirect target from Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki Content Policies to Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki content policies

#REDIRECT [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Wiki content policies]]

Tools for Writing Articles

2025-01-30T14:58:24Z

Tpat90: Changed redirect target from Consumer Action Taskforce:Tools for Writing Articles to Consumer Action Taskforce:Tools for writing articles

#REDIRECT [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Tools for writing articles]]

Moderator Guidelines

2025-01-30T14:57:57Z

Tpat90: Changed redirect target from Consumer Action Taskforce:Moderator Guidelines to Consumer Action Taskforce:Moderator guidelines

#REDIRECT [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Moderator guidelines]]

Living Persons Policy

2025-01-30T14:57:35Z

Tpat90: Changed redirect target from Consumer Action Taskforce:Living Persons Policy to Consumer Action Taskforce:Living persons policy

#REDIRECT [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Living persons policy]]

Roku

2025-01-30T14:54:39Z

Tpat90:

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Roku, Inc.
| Release Year = 2002
| Product Type = Hardware
| In Production = Yes
| Official Website = https://roku.com/
| Logo = Roku.png
}}'''Roku, Inc.''' is an American technology company, founded in October of 2002, known for their "Roku" line of products which consist of Smart TVs & streaming players. It is also the creator and maintainer of "Roku OS." Roku OS is a smart TV operating system allowing users to access apps such as streaming services, which was released in 2004.

==Consumer-protection summary==

====Privacy<ref name=":0">https://docs.roku.com/published/userprivacypolicy/en/us</ref>====

*Roku collects personal information such as the user's device information, usage data, viewing activity, and location data.
*This data is used for purposes such as providing and improving services, personalizing content, and targeted advertisements.
*Roku retains personal data for as long as deemed necessary.
*On many of their devices and services such as Roku OS, "Do not sell my personal information" is opt-out rather than opt-in.

====Transparency====

*The "Do not sell my personal information" setting on Roku OS is hidden behind many menus.
*Roku states the added forced arbitration clause was a decision made separate of the data breach (More on this below). This has obviously led to skepticism on the companies' overall truthfulness.<ref name=":1">https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/over-15-000-hacked-roku-accounts-sold-for-50-each-to-buy-hardware/</ref>

==Consumer-protection incidents==

===Post-Purchase EULA Modification (Mar. 2024)===
[[File:Roku Forced Arbitration.jpg|thumb|510x510px|The screen in which consumers agreed to force arbitration. There is no "disagree."<ref name=":2">https://www.techhive.com/article/2258136/rokus-forced-arbitration-update-leaves-users-fuming.html</ref>]]
In early March 2024, Roku Inc. [[Post-purchase EULA modification|modified]] its [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA), after the company disclosed a data breach that affected 15,000 accounts.<ref name=":2" /> In April 2024, Roku disclosed another incident that affected 576,000 additional accounts.<ref name=":1" />

This new EULA was enforced onto pre-existing users in the form of a message on their Smart TV/streaming player, which only allowed the user to accept the new terms, and did not offer an option to decline. The only option Roku Inc. offered to opt-out of the new EULA was for the user to mail the company their contact information and email used to register the Roku account (if applicable), along with the product model, software, or service "at issue." In this new EULA, Roku included a [[forced arbitration]] agreement to not allow users to sue, or to take part in lawsuits against Roku Inc.<ref name=":0" /> Roku claimed a week later that the new EULA was not in relation to the aforementioned data breach.

==="HDMI-customized ad insertion" patent (Oct. 2023)===
In early October 2023, Roku filed a patent ([https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230388589A1/en US20230388589A1]) for a program to insert ads on top of the display output of any non-Roku device displayed on a Roku TV. This program would be able to detect when the consumer has paused a video feed and display an advertisement, personalized by data collected through Roku services.<ref>https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230388589A1/en</ref>

As of January 2025, this patent has not been implemented into any Roku devices. However, a similar feature which also detects content from connected devices, called "More Ways to Watch," has previously been implemented.<ref>https://support.roku.com/article/115005739288</ref><ref>https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/roku-tvs-now-track-what-you-watch-to-suggest-streams-target-ads/</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Electronics companies]]

Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-30T14:54:12Z

Tpat90:

[[Category:Legal Lockout]]
===The EPCOT death lawsuit and Disney's arbitration clause===
In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf|"AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf"]] - wiki.rossmanngroup.com - accessed 2025-01-29 </ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on October 5, 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">[https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney "Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement"] - npr.org - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

==Background==
Dr. Tangsuan, a family-medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy and nuts. She and her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties. Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies and receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name="nytdwd">[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html "Can a Disney+ Subscription Keep a Widower From Suing Disney in Court?"] - nytimes.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

==The EULA roofie attempt==
In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:

#The Disney+ user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his PlayStation
#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

This represented a classic example of a [[EULA roofie]], where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Piccolo had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, he was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed his wife, even if the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.

Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html "Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+"] - edition.cnn.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

===Legal arguments===
Piccolo's attorneys filed a 123-page response calling Disney's argument "preposterous" and "fatally flawed" for several reasons:

*Mr. Piccolo brought the lawsuit as Personal Representative of his wife's estate, not as him the individual
*The estate itself never agreed to any arbitration terms
*The estate did not exist at the time Mr. Piccolo accepted the Disney+ terms, as Dr. Tangsuan was still alive
*The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was specifically limited to disputes concerning the streaming service
*Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation before raising the issue

The attorneys argued that "the notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience."<ref name="nytdwd" />

==Procedural timeline==
Disney had initially participated in discovery and filed an answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense. Only later did the company attempt to use the [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA) to avoid litigation. As noted in its second response, in August: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>

==Key legal issues around consumer rights==
===Meeting of minds===
The response highlighted fundamental contract-law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated basic principles of contract formation including "meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties)" and "good-faith dealing".<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>

===Unconscionability===
The response detailed both procedural and substantive unconscionability in Disney's EULA:

*'''Procedural unconscionability:'''
**"There was no showing that Mr. Piccolo was given any explanation of the arbitration clauses in The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement."
**"The so-called binding arbitration provision was merely contained in a link. With respect to the Disney Terms of Use, the link was not even referenced or hyperlinked on the Disney+ registration page. It was buried within another document that was hyperlinked."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 27-28</ref>

*'''Substantive unconscionability:'''
**The arbitration provisions "could present a problem for more than just their own client"
**"In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+"<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 30</ref>

"The Florida Supreme Court has acknowledged there is some overlap in the analysis of whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists and whether an arbitrable issue exists, noting: 'It is something of a chicken and egg situation as to which comes first.' This highlights the fundamental problem with modern EULAs - consumers cannot meaningfully assess what rights they're giving up when agreeing to terms that may be interpreted to cover any future dispute with any related corporate entity."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 19</ref>

==Resolution==
Following significant public backlash and media attention highlighting how this could affect Disney+'s 150 million subscribers, Disney withdrew its motion to compel arbitration in August 2024. Josh D'Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, stated: "At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations… With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss."<ref name="nprdwd" />

==Significance==

The response specifically addressed how Disney's EULA-roofie attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in serious cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the EULA-roofie phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrated how companies use complex legal documents and digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.
==References==
<references />

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]
[[Category:EULA roofieing]]
[[Category:Disney]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-30T14:41:21Z

Tpat90:

[[Category:Legal Lockout]]
===The EPCOT death lawsuit and Disney's arbitration clause===
In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf|"AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf"]] - wiki.rossmanngroup.com - accessed 2025-01-29 </ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on October 5, 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">[https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney "Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement"] - npr.org - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

==Background==
Dr. Tangsuan, a family-medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy and nuts. She and her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties. Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies and receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name="nytdwd">[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html "Can a Disney+ Subscription Keep a Widower From Suing Disney in Court?"] - nytimes.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

==The EULA roofie attempt==
In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:

#The Disney+ user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his PlayStation
#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

This represented a classic example of a [[EULA roofie]], where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Piccolo had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, he was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed his wife, even if the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.

Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html "Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+"] - edition.cnn.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

===Legal arguments===
Piccolo's attorneys filed a 123-page response calling Disney's argument "preposterous" and "fatally flawed" for several reasons:

*Mr. Piccolo brought the lawsuit as Personal Representative of his wife's estate, not as him the individual
*The estate itself never agreed to any arbitration terms
*The estate did not exist at the time Mr. Piccolo accepted the Disney+ terms, as Dr. Tangsuan was still alive
*The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was specifically limited to disputes concerning the streaming service
*Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation before raising the issue

The attorneys argued that "the notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience."<ref name="nytdwd" />

==Procedural timeline==
Disney had initially participated in discovery and filed an answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense. Only later did the company attempt to use the [[End-User License Agreement|End-user license agreement]] (EULA) to avoid litigation. As noted in its second response, in August: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>

==Key legal issues around consumer rights==
===Meeting of minds===
The response highlighted fundamental contract-law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated basic principles of contract formation including "meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties)" and "good-faith dealing".<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>

===Unconscionability===
The response detailed both procedural and substantive unconscionability in Disney's EULA:

*'''Procedural unconscionability:'''
**"There was no showing that Mr. Piccolo was given any explanation of the arbitration clauses in The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement."
**"The so-called binding arbitration provision was merely contained in a link. With respect to the Disney Terms of Use, the link was not even referenced or hyperlinked on the Disney+ registration page. It was buried within another document that was hyperlinked."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 27-28</ref>

*'''Substantive unconscionability:'''
**The arbitration provisions "could present a problem for more than just their own client"
**"In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+"<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 30</ref>

"The Florida Supreme Court has acknowledged there is some overlap in the analysis of whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists and whether an arbitrable issue exists, noting: 'It is something of a chicken and egg situation as to which comes first.' This highlights the fundamental problem with modern EULAs - consumers cannot meaningfully assess what rights they're giving up when agreeing to terms that may be interpreted to cover any future dispute with any related corporate entity."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 19</ref>

==Resolution==
Following significant public backlash and media attention highlighting how this could affect Disney+'s 150 million subscribers, Disney withdrew its motion to compel arbitration in August 2024. Josh D'Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, stated: "At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations… With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss."<ref name="nprdwd" />

==Significance==

The response specifically addressed how Disney's EULA-roofie attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in serious cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the EULA-roofie phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrated how companies use complex legal documents and digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.
==References==
<references />

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]
[[Category:EULA roofieing]]
[[Category:Disney]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

Article Types

2025-01-30T14:38:12Z

Tpat90: Changed redirect target from Consumer Action Taskforce:Article Types to Consumer Action Taskforce:Article types

#REDIRECT [[Consumer Action Taskforce:Article types]]

Roku

2025-01-30T14:36:51Z

Tpat90:

{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Roku, Inc.
| Release Year = 2002
| Product Type = Hardware
| In Production = Yes
| Official Website = https://roku.com/
| Logo = Roku.png
}}'''Roku, Inc.''' is an American technology company, founded in October of 2002, known for their "Roku" line of products which consist of Smart TVs & streaming players. It is also the creator and maintainer of "Roku OS." Roku OS is a smart TV operating system allowing users to access apps such as streaming services, which was released in 2004.

==Consumer-protection summary==

====Privacy<ref name=":0">https://docs.roku.com/published/userprivacypolicy/en/us</ref>====

*Roku collects personal information such as the user's device information, usage data, viewing activity, and location data.
*This data is used for purposes such as providing and improving services, personalizing content, and targeted advertisements.
*Roku retains personal data for as long as deemed necessary.
*On many of their devices and services such as Roku OS, "Do not sell my personal information" is opt-out rather than opt-in.

====Transparency====

*The "Do not sell my personal information" setting on Roku OS is hidden behind many menus.
*Roku states the added forced arbitration clause was a decision made separate of the data breach (More on this below). This has obviously led to skepticism on the companies' overall truthfulness.<ref name=":1">https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/over-15-000-hacked-roku-accounts-sold-for-50-each-to-buy-hardware/</ref>

==Consumer-protection incidents==

===Post-Purchase EULA Modification (Mar. 2024)===
[[File:Roku Forced Arbitration.jpg|thumb|510x510px|The screen in which consumers agreed to force arbitration. There is no "disagree."<ref name=":2">https://www.techhive.com/article/2258136/rokus-forced-arbitration-update-leaves-users-fuming.html</ref>]]
In early March 2024, Roku Inc. [[Post-purchase EULA modification|modified]] its [[End-User License Agreement|End-user license agreement]] (EULA), after the company disclosed a data breach that affected 15,000 accounts.<ref name=":2" /> In April 2024, Roku disclosed another incident that affected 576,000 additional accounts.<ref name=":1" />

This new EULA was enforced onto pre-existing users in the form of a message on their Smart TV/streaming player, which only allowed the user to accept the new terms, and did not offer an option to decline. The only option Roku Inc. offered to opt-out of the new EULA was for the user to mail the company their contact information and email used to register the Roku account (if applicable), along with the product model, software, or service "at issue." In this new EULA, Roku included a [[forced arbitration]] agreement to not allow users to sue, or to take part in lawsuits against Roku Inc.<ref name=":0" /> Roku claimed a week later that the new EULA was not in relation to the aforementioned data breach.

==="HDMI-customized ad insertion" patent (Oct. 2023)===
In early October 2023, Roku filed a patent ([https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230388589A1/en US20230388589A1]) for a program to insert ads on top of the display output of any non-Roku device displayed on a Roku TV. This program would be able to detect when the consumer has paused a video feed and display an advertisement, personalized by data collected through Roku services.<ref>https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230388589A1/en</ref>

As of January 2025, this patent has not been implemented into any Roku devices. However, a similar feature which also detects content from connected devices, called "More Ways to Watch," has previously been implemented.<ref>https://support.roku.com/article/115005739288</ref><ref>https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/roku-tvs-now-track-what-you-watch-to-suggest-streams-target-ads/</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Electronics companies]]

Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-30T14:36:23Z

Tpat90:

[[Category:Legal Lockout]]
===The EPCOT death lawsuit and Disney's arbitration clause===
In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf|"AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf"]] - wiki.rossmanngroup.com - accessed 2025-01-29 </ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on October 5, 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">[https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney "Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement"] - npr.org - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

==Background==
Dr. Tangsuan, a family-medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy and nuts. She and her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties. Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies and receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name="nytdwd">[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html "Can a Disney+ Subscription Keep a Widower From Suing Disney in Court?"] - nytimes.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

==The EULA roofie attempt==
In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[EULA|user agreements]]:

#The Disney+ user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his PlayStation
#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

This represented a classic example of a [[EULA roofie]], where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Piccolo had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, he was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed his wife, even if the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.

Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html "Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+"] - edition.cnn.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

===Legal arguments===
Piccolo's attorneys filed a 123-page response calling Disney's argument "preposterous" and "fatally flawed" for several reasons:

*Mr. Piccolo brought the lawsuit as Personal Representative of his wife's estate, not as him the individual
*The estate itself never agreed to any arbitration terms
*The estate did not exist at the time Mr. Piccolo accepted the Disney+ terms, as Dr. Tangsuan was still alive
*The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was specifically limited to disputes concerning the streaming service
*Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation before raising the issue

The attorneys argued that "the notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience."<ref name="nytdwd" />

==Procedural timeline==
Disney had initially participated in discovery and filed an answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense. Only later did the company attempt to use the [[End-User License Agreement|End-user license agreement]] (EULA) to avoid litigation. As noted in its second response, in August: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>

==Key legal issues around consumer rights==
===Meeting of minds===
The response highlighted fundamental contract-law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated basic principles of contract formation including "meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties)" and "good-faith dealing".<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>

===Unconscionability===
The response detailed both procedural and substantive unconscionability in Disney's EULA:

*'''Procedural unconscionability:'''
**"There was no showing that Mr. Piccolo was given any explanation of the arbitration clauses in The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement."
**"The so-called binding arbitration provision was merely contained in a link. With respect to the Disney Terms of Use, the link was not even referenced or hyperlinked on the Disney+ registration page. It was buried within another document that was hyperlinked."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 27-28</ref>

*'''Substantive unconscionability:'''
**The arbitration provisions "could present a problem for more than just their own client"
**"In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+"<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 30</ref>

"The Florida Supreme Court has acknowledged there is some overlap in the analysis of whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists and whether an arbitrable issue exists, noting: 'It is something of a chicken and egg situation as to which comes first.' This highlights the fundamental problem with modern EULAs - consumers cannot meaningfully assess what rights they're giving up when agreeing to terms that may be interpreted to cover any future dispute with any related corporate entity."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 19</ref>

==Resolution==
Following significant public backlash and media attention highlighting how this could affect Disney+'s 150 million subscribers, Disney withdrew its motion to compel arbitration in August 2024. Josh D'Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, stated: "At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations… With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss."<ref name="nprdwd" />

==Significance==

The response specifically addressed how Disney's EULA-roofie attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in serious cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the EULA-roofie phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrated how companies use complex legal documents and digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.
==References==
<references />

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]
[[Category:EULA roofieing]]
[[Category:Disney]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

Valve removes arbitration requirement from Steam Subscriber Agreement

2025-01-30T14:35:58Z

Tpat90:

In September 2024, [[Valve]] removed both the individual [[Forced Arbitration|binding arbitration]] requirements and class-action waiver from the [https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement Steam Subscriber Agreement], which is, essentially, [[Steam]]'s [[End-user license agreement]]. This was done because of a pending [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.337957/gov.uscourts.wawd.337957.1.0.pdf class-action lawsuit] wherein "the named Plaintiffs won binding decisions from arbitrators rendering Valve's arbitration provision unenforceable for both lack of notice and because it impermissibly seeks to bar public injunctive relief."[1]

== Implications ==
This restores consumer rights to both court litigation and class-action lawsuits, rather than being bound to forced arbitration, for resolving disputes with Steam.

== Sources/Links ==

* Link to the Steam news article: https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/593110/view/4696781406111167991. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240927180120/https://store.steampowered.com/oldnews/ Archived] from the original on 27 September, 2024. Retrieved 17 January, 2025.
* Link to the Steam Subscriber Agreement: https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240928014938/https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ Archived] from the original on 28 September, 2024. Retrieved 17 January, 2025.
* Louis Rossmann's video on the news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f81qXxggo8
* NACA's arbitration definition: [https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/.] . [https://web.archive.org/web/20250101160116/https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ Archived] from the original on 1 January, 2025. Retrieved 17 January, 2025.
* [1] "Steam doesn’t want to pay arbitration fees, tells gamers to sue instead": https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/steam-doesnt-want-to-pay-arbitration-fees-tells-gamers-to-sue-instead/. [https://web.archive.org/web/20241217090450/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/steam-doesnt-want-to-pay-arbitration-fees-tells-gamers-to-sue-instead/ Archived] from the original on 17 December, 2024. Retrieved 17 January, 2025.

[[Category:Valve Corporation]]
[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

List of devices requiring account for initial setup

2025-01-30T14:35:41Z

Tpat90:

You've just bought your shiny new gadget. As you've just unboxed it, you want to set it up. Unfortunately, you can't do anything with it as is. You have to pair it with some shady app on your smartphone and accept a lengthy [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA) just to test it. Then you have to create a new account that links your e-mail and other personal data to the device.

Often this information is hidden deep inside a manual, and there are no mentions on the product page or box. Sometimes it's not even disclosed in the manual. You have to watch some random unboxing videos on YouTube, to get to know that you need to create an account to use the device.

==Why not?==
'''Why would I want to avoid such devices?'''

*Sometimes when you buy such a device, you can receive an open-box unit which is paired to an account of the previous owner. Unlinking it is often impossible without an access to paired account, as even the manufacturer's support refuses to do it, citing "security reasons".<ref>https://ipcamtalk.com/threads/ezviz-c8c-camera-blocked-by-previous-owner.63418/#post-666651</ref>
*You have to accept a lengthy EULA, often hiding [[EULA roofie|undesirable clauses]], such as [[forced arbitration]].

==The list==
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Manufacturer
!Model
!Notes
!Source
|-
|EZVIZ
|H6c, Probably all cameras
|
|<ref>https://mfs.ezvizlife.com/H6c_QSG_EN(EU)(V1.0.0).pdf?ver=52475 page 4</ref>
|-
|DJI
|Osmo Pocket 3
|Android app needs to be sideloaded, circumventing Google's Play Store security checks.
|<ref>https://support.dji.com/help/content?customId=en-us03400009024&spaceId=34</ref>
|-
|DJI
|RS 3 Mini
|Allows "5 trial uses" without activation.
|<ref>https://support.dji.com/help/content?customId=en-us03400007193&spaceId=34&re=US&lang=en "Activating the Gimbal" section</ref>
|-
|DJI
|RS 3 Pro
|Allows "5 trial uses" without activation.
|<ref>https://support.dji.com/help/content?customId=03400006898&spaceId=34</ref>
|-
|TP-Link
|Kasa Smart Wi-Fi Power Strip, 6-Outlet
|
|<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20240629160455/https://static.tp-link.com/upload/manual/2021/202111/20211101/1910013111_HS300(US)_UG_V2.0.1.pdf"Set Up Your Smart Power Strip" section</ref>
|-
|Canon
|EOS Webcam Utility software
|
|<ref>[[Requirement for Canon EOS Webcam Utility subscription to enable webcam features on cameras#User Frustrations]] Better source needed</ref>
|-
|Sony
|WH-XB910N
|App is needed to be to change the switch for ambient sound / noise cancellation to including turning it off. Account is needed for the app
|
|}

==Notes==
Some device groups have an unified idea about account requirements, even through different manufacturers.

===IP cameras===
A lot of modern IP cameras do not have a traditional RTSP/HTTP video stream access, but need to be paired with an app. The smartphone app is the only means to view the camera stream. There's no sustainable way to record the stream locally. You are forced to use manufacturer's cloud storage subscription solution.

Sometimes volunteers have provided a way to circumvent this restriction, providing an alternative firmware that an advanced user can flash.<ref>https://github.com/roleoroleo/yi-hack-Allwinner-v2</ref> This is not an ideal solution, as the support is sometimes janky, and manufacturer can always block this in newer model revisions.

===DJI===
All DJI devices appear to need account for setup. The Android app needs to be sideloaded, circumventing Google's Play Store security checks.<ref>https://drones.stackexchange.com/questions/2209/how-come-the-dji-fly-app-is-not-in-google-play-store</ref> It was previously available on Play Store, but has been pulled off in 2021. DJI officially says it's due to changing "compatibility strategy".<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20211213081844/https://twitter.com/DJISupport/status/1470305900132913152</ref>

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Overview]]

Hidden EULA language

2025-01-30T14:35:05Z

Tpat90:

"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]]<sup>[source?]</sup>.

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>PLAYSTATION<sup>TM</sup> 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]]

User:Tpat90/Sandbox🫖

2025-01-30T14:13:27Z

Tpat90: Created page with "This is a test to break kostas assumption that 🫖 and other utf 16 characters would be of problem."

This is a test to break kostas assumption that 🫖 and other utf 16 characters would be of problem.

Sandbox

2025-01-30T14:11:31Z

Tpat90: Let's see how it reacts to 🫖

This is a place to experiment. It's the best place to test out modifications to template code without affecting the rest of the wiki, but it can be used for any form of experimentation.

Some other wikis have their sandboxes in the wiki's namespace (CAT in our case). Also, some wikis reset this page periodically, but that can probably be done manually for now.

🫖🫖🫖

Shortage of medical ventilators during COVID-19 pandemic

2025-01-30T14:07:25Z

Tpat90:

{{StubNotice}}

During the COVID crisis, manufacturers like General Electric, Dräger, Steris, locked down the supply of spare parts, software and repair manuals behind expensive certifications for technicians, and threaten

https://www.businessinsider.com/ventilator-manufacturers-dont-let-hospitals-fix-coronavirus-right-to-repair-2020-5?op=1

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-medical-device-maker-threatens-ifixit-over-ventilator-repair-project/

https://pirg.org/media-center/new-senate-right-to-repair-bill-to-reduce-barriers-to-fixing-medical-equipment-including-ventilators/

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/312560-deadly-drm-right-to-repair-a-life-or-death-problem-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ventilator-companies-finally-make-the-life-saving-devices-easier-to-repair/

https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1816&context=shlr

Shortage of medical ventilators during COVID-19 pandemic

2025-01-30T14:07:00Z

Tpat90: stubbed

{{stub}}

During the COVID crisis, manufacturers like General Electric, Dräger, Steris, locked down the supply of spare parts, software and repair manuals behind expensive certifications for technicians, and threaten

https://www.businessinsider.com/ventilator-manufacturers-dont-let-hospitals-fix-coronavirus-right-to-repair-2020-5?op=1

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-medical-device-maker-threatens-ifixit-over-ventilator-repair-project/

https://pirg.org/media-center/new-senate-right-to-repair-bill-to-reduce-barriers-to-fixing-medical-equipment-including-ventilators/

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/312560-deadly-drm-right-to-repair-a-life-or-death-problem-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ventilator-companies-finally-make-the-life-saving-devices-easier-to-repair/

https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1816&context=shlr

John Deere

2025-01-30T12:10:24Z

Tpat90:

{{StubNotice}}
'''[[wikipedia:John Deere|John Deere]]''' is a leading manufacturer of agricultural and heavy machinery. Founded in 1837, they are primarily known for their heavy-duty agriculture machines, such as tractors and combines. They have recently faced criticism for their business practices, especially in the realm of equipment repair. These practices have raised concerns among farmers, independent repair technicians, and consumer-advocacy groups.<ref name="jdflrtrt">https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260895/john-deere-ftc-lawsuit-right-to-repair-tractors</ref>

{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = John Deere
| Type = Public
| Founded = 1837
| Industry = Agricultural machinery, Heavy equipment
| Official Website = https://deere.com/
| Logo = John Deere logo.png
}}

==Consumer-protection profile==
[[File:John deere doc.png|thumb|524x524px|Front Page of the FTC's Suit Against John Deere<ref name="DCRCCN325">https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/DeereCoREDACTEDComplaintCaseNo325-cv-50017.pdf</ref>]]

====Repairability====

*John Deere limits access to essential repair software and diagnostic tools.<ref name="dith3">https://pirg.org/resources/deere-in-the-headlights-3/</ref>
*Restrictive policies prevent farmers from performing repairs or using independent repair shops, forcing them to rely on authorized dealerships.<ref name="jdflrtrt" />
*Farmers have reported being unable to fix minor mechanical issues without John Deere's proprietary tools.<ref name="fssdcp">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-states-sue-deere-company-protect-farmers-unfair-corporate-tactics-high-repair-costs</ref>
*John Deere has allegedly unlawfully inflated repair costs by controlling the repair-service market.

====Monopoly on repairs====
<ul>
<li> John Deere's control over the repair market has been likened to monopolistic behavior.</li>
<li> By restricting and controlling access to repair resources and parts, the company has effectively eliminated competition in the repair market.<ref>https://www.courthousenews.com/ftc-accuses-john-deere-of-unlawful-equipment-repair-practices/</ref></li>
</ul>

====Digital rights and ownership====

*John Deere uses software locks and [[digital rights management]] (DRM) systems that control user autonomy.<ref>https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/john-deere-repair-software/</ref>
*These measures prevent farmers and independent repair technicians from completing repairs without access to the proprietary software.<ref name="dith3" />

====Opposition to right-to-repair legislation====

*John Deere has actively lobbied against [[Right to repair|right-to-repair]] legislation in multiple states, and on the federal level. <ref>[https://pirg.org/resources/john-deere-and-right-to-repair-over-the-years/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://pirg.org/resources/john-deere-and-right-to-repair-over-the-years/]</ref><ref>[https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/midwest-farmers-right-to-repair-agriculture-john-deere-illinois/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/midwest-farmers-right-to-repair-agriculture-john-deere-illinois/]</ref>
*Despite signing a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation in 2023, the company has been accused of undermining the spirit of the agreement.<ref>[https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/11/12/is-john-deeres-day-of-reckoning-soon-at-hand/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%3A%20Deere%20embeds%20authorization%20codes%20in,dealers%20have%20access%20to%20all%20the%20verification%20codes. https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/11/12/is-john-deeres-day-of-reckoning-soon-at-hand/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%3A%20Deere%20embeds%20authorization%20codes%20in,dealers%20have%20access%20to%20all%20the%20verification%20codes.]</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-RgOUT3zeo</ref>

==Consumer-protection incidents==

====FTC Lawsuit (January 2025)====
On January 15, 2025, the [[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC) filed a lawsuit against John Deere, alleging anticompetitive practices in the repair market.<ref name="fssdcp" /><ref name="DCRCCN325" /> The lawsuit claims that:

*John Deere unlawfully inflated repair costs by monopolizing the repair-service market.
*The company's restrictive policies violated consumer-protection laws and limited farmers' ability to maintain their equipment.

==See Also==

* [[John Deere dealerships are lobbying against right to repair]]
* [[John Deere employee responds to Right to Repair]]
* [[John Deere fails to uphold right to repair agreement]]
* [[John Deere security flaws exposed sensitive customer information]]

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Agricultural machinery manufacturers]]
[[Category:Tractor manufacturers]]
[[Category:Garden tool manufacturers]]
[[Category:Construction equipment manufacturers]]
[[Category:Engine manufacturers]]
[[Category:Defense companies]]
[[Category:Automotive transmission makers]]
[[Category:Electrical generation engine manufacturers]]
[[Category:Tool manufacturing companies of the United States]]
[[Category:John Deere]]

Newag

2025-01-29T19:46:40Z

Tpat90:

{{StubNotice}}

'''Newag S.A.''' (pronounced ''"nevag"'') is a Polish company based in Nowy Sącz that specializes in the production, maintenance, and modernization of railway rolling stock.<ref>https://www.newag.pl/en/company/history/</ref>

==Backdoor incident==
In 2022, when maintenance was done on trains manufactured by '''Newag''', malicious code and backdoors were discovered which were found to make the trains break down after third-party repairs, prevent them from entering a competitors workshop and also stop working after a set amount of time standing still.<ref>[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/manufacturer-deliberately-bricked-trains-repaired-by-competitors-hackers-find/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/manufacturer-deliberately-bricked-trains-repaired-by-competitors-hackers-find/]</ref> The investigation against '''Newag''' is still on-going.

==Sources==
<references />

Newag

2025-01-29T19:45:47Z

Tpat90:

{{stub}}

'''Newag S.A.''' (pronounced ''"nevag"'') is a Polish company based in Nowy Sącz that specializes in the production, maintenance, and modernization of railway rolling stock.<ref>https://www.newag.pl/en/company/history/</ref>

==Backdoor incident==
In 2022, when maintenance was done on trains manufactured by '''Newag''', malicious code and backdoors were discovered which were found to make the trains break down after third-party repairs, prevent them from entering a competitors workshop and also stop working after a set amount of time standing still.<ref>[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/manufacturer-deliberately-bricked-trains-repaired-by-competitors-hackers-find/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/manufacturer-deliberately-bricked-trains-repaired-by-competitors-hackers-find/]</ref> The investigation against '''Newag''' is still on-going.

==Sources==
<references />

User talk:Louis

2025-01-28T13:07:46Z

Tpat90: /* can't fully agree to user page, seems like a biased opinion */ new section

Hi, If you are Louis Rossmann please fix [[Template:Cite web]]. Great Wiki. Thanks. [[User:Jack Franks|Jack Franks]] ([[User talk:Jack Franks|talk]]) 19:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

== can't fully agree to user page, seems like a biased opinion ==

The user page doesn't disagrees with the mission statement. There isn't any reference attached to it and I never heard Louis say he is a cool person. Please add references! [[User:Tpat90|Tpat90]] ([[User talk:Tpat90|talk]]) 13:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

LG refrigerator warranty scandal

2025-01-27T19:34:33Z

Tpat90:

=='''LG Linear Compressor Refrigerator Failures & Arbitration'''==
Here we'll go over a systematic pattern of early refrigerator failures & attempts by LG Electronics to prevent consumer lawsuits regarding their lack of warranty coverage for failed fridges through contested arbitration practices.

==Overview==
LG Electronics faced widespread consumer complaints due to systematic failures of their linear compressor refrigerators, with many reports of units failing within 2-5 years in spite of being advertised with a 10-year warranty & 20-year lifespan.<ref>[https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/consumer/lg-refrigerators-failures-update/3465620/ NBC Bay Area, "Fridge failures: LG says angry owners can't sue, company points to cardboard box", February 27, 2024]</ref> The company's response to these failures has focused on attempting to force consumers into private arbitration rather than addressing the underlying product flaws, where LG cites arbitration notices that most consumers never had the opportunity to see.

==The Linear Compressor Issue==
===Pattern of Failures===
Many documented cases show LG's linear compressor refrigerators failing well before their advertised lifespan:

*Reports of compressors failing within 24 months of purchase<ref>NBC Bay Area interview with Sunil Kardile, February 27, 2024: "The compressor dies like every year"</ref>
*Multiple customers requiring 4-5 compressor replacements within a few years
*Consistent pattern of failures happening shortly after the standard warranty period

===Cost to Consumers===
While LG's warranty covers the compressor part itself, consumers report large financial impact:

*Labor costs averaging $1,000 per repair despite part coverage<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1b3d8yr/comment/ksrtouv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Reddit discussion r/technology, January 2024: "I've had two LG fridge compressors go bad. They cover the part but not the labor and I've spent more than $1000 installing new compressors into them"]</ref>
*Extended periods without functioning refrigeration while awaiting repairs<ref>NBC Bay Area interview with Frank Rodriguez, February 27, 2024</ref>
*Some consumers forced to purchase replacement units after multiple failed repairs

==Arbitration Controversy==
In 2024, LG attempted to prevent a class action lawsuit by citing arbitration notices that appeared in three locations:

#On the product box
#Inside the refrigerator
#In the owner's manual

===Legal Issues with Notice===
Several issues make LG's arbitration notice strategy legally questionable:

*Delivery people routinely remove refrigerators from boxes before bringing them into homes so that they can fit through the door, preventing customers from seeing box notices<ref>NBC Bay Area investigation found that "nobody they talked to saw the box. The delivery guys typically took the box off before even bringing it inside."</ref>
*Internal notices and manual contents are only accessible '''''after''''' purchase completion<ref>Attorney Azar Mouzari statement to NBC Bay Area: "Consumers don't have access to an owner's manual until after they've made the purchase."</ref>
*Legal precedent from similar cases (such as Samsung's smartphone box arbitration notices) suggests post-purchase notices may not be enforceable<ref>Professor Anna Han, Santa Clara University School of Law, NBC Bay Area interview, February 27, 2024</ref>

Professor Anna Han of Santa Clara University School of Law notes that proper notice requires both sides to "knowingly agree not to sue," questioning whether notices unseen until after purchase can constitute valid agreement.

==Consumer Response==
The issue gained widespread attention in early 2024 when attorney Azar Mouzari reported receiving "thousands of calls within a span of two weeks" from affected consumers after media coverage of the situation.<ref>Attorney Azar Mouzari to NBC Bay Area: "We received thousands of calls within a span of two weeks ... thousands"</ref> Consumer complaints centered on several key issues:

*Systematic failure of compressors
*High repair cost despite warranty coverage
*Difficult to obtain warranty service
*Unable to receive refunds or replacements for units that keep failing

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Organizations]]
[[Category:Products]]
[[Category:Anti-Consumer Practices]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]

Talk:LG refrigerator warranty scandal

2025-01-27T19:32:14Z

Tpat90: /* Sources / Refs */

== Sources / Refs ==

List of the sources:

* https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/consumer/lg-refrigerators-failures-update/3465620/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1b3d8yr/comment/ksrtouv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
*

[[User:Tpat90|Tpat90]] ([[User talk:Tpat90|talk]]) 19:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:LG refrigerator warranty scandal

2025-01-27T19:29:01Z

Tpat90: /* Sources / Refs */ new section

== Sources / Refs ==

List of the sources:

* https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/consumer/lg-refrigerators-failures-update/3465620/

[[User:Tpat90|Tpat90]] ([[User talk:Tpat90|talk]]) 19:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Seattle Avionics

2025-01-25T16:43:07Z

Tpat90:

[https://www.seattleavionics.com/ '''Seattle Avionics'''] is a company that specializes in providing software for general aviation aircraft. FlyQ EFB was an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag electronic flight bag] application available for iPad and iPhone which was primarily geared towards non-commercial (Part 91, general aviation) aircraft use. General Aviation pilots mostly favored other competing electronic flight bags, all of which required yearly subscriptions.

==FlyQ EFB change to terms of service==
Seattle Avionics offered lifetime subscriptions annually during Black Friday for many of its subscription-based products, including FlyQ EFB. Eventually, Seattle Avionics would stop offering deals for lifetime subscriptions. Around September 2020, Seattle Avionics was acquired by AFV Partners.<ref>https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/september/24/seattle-avionics-acquired-by-technology-investor</ref>

On July 19, 2024, Seattle Avionics sent an email to FlyQ EFB lifetime subscribers. This email began with announcing bug fixes, new features, and even a new version. Below this section was a section detailing a "change" to the lifetime program:<blockquote>In order to continue investing at this pace, starting today, we’re making the following changes to our Lifetime program:

1. All Lifetime customers can use the new FlyQ+ EFB 7.0 and later releases for 30 days.

2. During that period, Lifetime customers can upgrade to an annual subscription with a one-time 25% discount to continue to enjoy FlyQ+ EFB 7.0 and all other future releases.

3. In 30 days, Lifetime customers who do not move to a new annual subscription can download a forthcoming new FlyQ EFB Legacy 6.9.1 and use it for a year, after which it will be sunset. As the version number implies, FlyQ EFB Legacy is the same as FlyQ EFB 6.9.1 released in May 2024 and does not include the features or fixes in FlyQ+ EFB 7.0.

Once again, thank you so much for your support over the years. We’re excited to aggressively move FlyQ+ into the future with both defect fixes and industry-leading new features while retaining FlyQ’s famous ease of use! We look forward to you joining us on this exciting journey.<ref group="Full Email Communications">[[:File:FlyQ 1 19Jul2024.PNG]]</ref></blockquote>Pilots voiced dissatisfaction toward these policy changes on various general aviation forums including on Reddit,<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1e7e6bu/flyq_efb_revokes_lifetime_subscription/?ref=share&ref_source=link</ref> Pilots of America,<ref>https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/seattle-avionics.148039/</ref> and Mooney Space.<ref>https://mooneyspace.com/topic/49042-i-guess-i-have-13-months-to-live-just-kidding/</ref> AVWeb further wrote an article outlining this email.<ref>https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/seattle-avionics-ends-lifetime-subscription-memberships-for-flyq-efb/</ref> The timing was directly before [https://www.eaa.org/airventure EAA Airventure] 2024, the world's largest event for general aviation where Seattle Avionics had their own booth. Shortly after, on July 31, Seattle Avionics sent a second email updating lifetime subscribers.<blockquote>We announced and released our new app FlyQ+ EFB 7.0 on Friday July 19, 2024. We also announced that we'll be releasing the FlyQ Legacy app for FlyQ Lifetime subscribers soon. Since that time, we received numerous emails from FlyQ Lifetime users, spoke to many people at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, and reviewed posts on social media. Based on the feedback we received, we are making the following updates:

*Lifetime users can continue to use FlyQ without any additional charge by downloading the FlyQ Legacy app, which we are releasing in the coming weeks. FlyQ Legacy will be version 6.9.2 to reflect that it’s based on FlyQ EFB 6.9.1 but also includes stability fixes added in FlyQ+ EFB 7.0.0 as well as fixes being added to forthcoming FlyQ+ EFB 7.0.2.

*FlyQ Legacy will load your existing flight plans and aircraft / pilot profiles as well as continue to receive monthly ChartData updates.

*We have no plans to update FlyQ Legacy after this release.

*You can trial and use the new FlyQ+ EFB 7.0 app and later versions for 90 days without charge.

*FlyQ Legacy and FlyQ+ EFB can both be loaded on the same iPad or iPhone so you can compare both apps and determine if FlyQ+ has the value you seek. If you decide to subscribe to FlyQ+, we are offering a 25% discount from current standard prices as acknowledgement of your Lifetime purchase. After your discount, a VFR subscription is $74.99 and an IFR+VFR subscription is $149.99. You’ll receive an email with purchase information shortly.

*Seattle Avionics also sold Lifetime ChartData subscriptions for Aspen, Dynon, AFS, GRT, and Honeywell products. There are no changes to these subscriptions.

Our goal is to increase the velocity of the development of FlyQ+ with more frequent releases that deliver high value and offer the best product to meet your flying requirements. Please continue to provide your feedback and help guide our road map. We will release more features over the next 90 days in FlyQ+ for you to evaluate and we look forward to your feedback.<ref group="Full Email Communications">[[:File:FlyQ 2 31Jul2024.PNG]]</ref></blockquote>While this did affirm that other Seattle Avionics products that also had lifetime subscriptions were not affected, the policy effectively did not change their revocation of the FlyQ EFB lifetime subscription. On October 2, Seattle Avionics sent a final update:<blockquote>In our effort to communicate critical changes to FlyQ, we’ve sent multiple emails describing the new FlyQ Lifetime subscription model. This change allows us to substantially accelerate investment in the product, both improving the app stability and adding multiple new features. The proof has been a half dozen releases already this calendar year.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn’t note how the policy change was handled, and we sincerely apologize for the angst, confusion, and mistrust this has caused. Clearly, we’re better at writing software than policy statements. To that point, we’ve come up with a revised plan that we believe better portrays our commitment to the FlyQ community and allows us to continue the increased investment in FlyQ.

(+) All FlyQ customers, lifetime and annual subscribers alike, will be able to use FlyQ+. No one will be asked to download a new app.

(+) All FlyQ customers, lifetime and annual subscribers alike, will continue to get new ChartData updates and subsequent releases of FlyQ+ as they are released.

(+) The only difference will be that new features, beyond what was in FlyQ EFB 6.9.1, will only be enabled for annual subscribers. To be clear, this means that all users will continue to receive bug fixes and new releases as iOS updates are produced but only annual subscribers will benefit from the new features added in FlyQ+ 7.0 and later.<ref group="Full Email Communications">[[:File:FlyQ 3 02Oct2024.PNG]]</ref></blockquote>This update gave lifetime customers continued access to the app and miscellaneous fixes, as the company was still active and actively developing the app, but would exclude lifetime subscribers from any additional features now included in the equivalent subscriptions today.

== References ==
<references />
<references group="Full Email Communications" />

[[Category:Software companies]]

Seattle Avionics

2025-01-25T16:40:53Z

Tpat90:

[https://www.seattleavionics.com/ '''Seattle Avionics'''] is a company that specializes in providing software for general aviation aircraft. FlyQ EFB was an [electronic flight bag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag) application available for iPad and iPhone which was primarily geared towards non-commercial (Part 91, general aviation) aircraft use. General Aviation pilots mostly favored other competing electronic flight bags, all of which required yearly subscriptions.

==FlyQ EFB change to terms of service==
Seattle Avionics offered lifetime subscriptions annually during Black Friday for many of its subscription-based products, including FlyQ EFB. Eventually, Seattle Avionics would stop offering deals for lifetime subscriptions. Around September 2020, Seattle Avionics was acquired by AFV Partners.<ref>https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/september/24/seattle-avionics-acquired-by-technology-investor</ref>

On July 19, 2024, Seattle Avionics sent an email to FlyQ EFB lifetime subscribers. This email began with announcing bug fixes, new features, and even a new version. Below this section was a section detailing a "change" to the lifetime program:<blockquote>In order to continue investing at this pace, starting today, we’re making the following changes to our Lifetime program:

1. All Lifetime customers can use the new FlyQ+ EFB 7.0 and later releases for 30 days.

2. During that period, Lifetime customers can upgrade to an annual subscription with a one-time 25% discount to continue to enjoy FlyQ+ EFB 7.0 and all other future releases.

3. In 30 days, Lifetime customers who do not move to a new annual subscription can download a forthcoming new FlyQ EFB Legacy 6.9.1 and use it for a year, after which it will be sunset. As the version number implies, FlyQ EFB Legacy is the same as FlyQ EFB 6.9.1 released in May 2024 and does not include the features or fixes in FlyQ+ EFB 7.0.

Once again, thank you so much for your support over the years. We’re excited to aggressively move FlyQ+ into the future with both defect fixes and industry-leading new features while retaining FlyQ’s famous ease of use! We look forward to you joining us on this exciting journey.<ref group="Full Email Communications">[[:File:FlyQ 1 19Jul2024.PNG]]</ref></blockquote>Pilots voiced dissatisfaction toward these policy changes on various general aviation forums including on Reddit,<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1e7e6bu/flyq_efb_revokes_lifetime_subscription/?ref=share&ref_source=link</ref> Pilots of America,<ref>https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/seattle-avionics.148039/</ref> and Mooney Space.<ref>https://mooneyspace.com/topic/49042-i-guess-i-have-13-months-to-live-just-kidding/</ref> AVWeb further wrote an article outlining this email.<ref>https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/seattle-avionics-ends-lifetime-subscription-memberships-for-flyq-efb/</ref> The timing was directly before [https://www.eaa.org/airventure EAA Airventure] 2024, the world's largest event for general aviation where Seattle Avionics had their own booth. Shortly after, on July 31, Seattle Avionics sent a second email updating lifetime subscribers.<blockquote>We announced and released our new app FlyQ+ EFB 7.0 on Friday July 19, 2024. We also announced that we'll be releasing the FlyQ Legacy app for FlyQ Lifetime subscribers soon. Since that time, we received numerous emails from FlyQ Lifetime users, spoke to many people at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, and reviewed posts on social media. Based on the feedback we received, we are making the following updates:

*Lifetime users can continue to use FlyQ without any additional charge by downloading the FlyQ Legacy app, which we are releasing in the coming weeks. FlyQ Legacy will be version 6.9.2 to reflect that it’s based on FlyQ EFB 6.9.1 but also includes stability fixes added in FlyQ+ EFB 7.0.0 as well as fixes being added to forthcoming FlyQ+ EFB 7.0.2.

*FlyQ Legacy will load your existing flight plans and aircraft / pilot profiles as well as continue to receive monthly ChartData updates.

*We have no plans to update FlyQ Legacy after this release.

*You can trial and use the new FlyQ+ EFB 7.0 app and later versions for 90 days without charge.

*FlyQ Legacy and FlyQ+ EFB can both be loaded on the same iPad or iPhone so you can compare both apps and determine if FlyQ+ has the value you seek. If you decide to subscribe to FlyQ+, we are offering a 25% discount from current standard prices as acknowledgement of your Lifetime purchase. After your discount, a VFR subscription is $74.99 and an IFR+VFR subscription is $149.99. You’ll receive an email with purchase information shortly.

*Seattle Avionics also sold Lifetime ChartData subscriptions for Aspen, Dynon, AFS, GRT, and Honeywell products. There are no changes to these subscriptions.

Our goal is to increase the velocity of the development of FlyQ+ with more frequent releases that deliver high value and offer the best product to meet your flying requirements. Please continue to provide your feedback and help guide our road map. We will release more features over the next 90 days in FlyQ+ for you to evaluate and we look forward to your feedback.<ref group="Full Email Communications">[[:File:FlyQ 2 31Jul2024.PNG]]</ref></blockquote>While this did affirm that other Seattle Avionics products that also had lifetime subscriptions were not affected, the policy effectively did not change their revocation of the FlyQ EFB lifetime subscription. On October 2, Seattle Avionics sent a final update:<blockquote>In our effort to communicate critical changes to FlyQ, we’ve sent multiple emails describing the new FlyQ Lifetime subscription model. This change allows us to substantially accelerate investment in the product, both improving the app stability and adding multiple new features. The proof has been a half dozen releases already this calendar year.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn’t note how the policy change was handled, and we sincerely apologize for the angst, confusion, and mistrust this has caused. Clearly, we’re better at writing software than policy statements. To that point, we’ve come up with a revised plan that we believe better portrays our commitment to the FlyQ community and allows us to continue the increased investment in FlyQ.

(+) All FlyQ customers, lifetime and annual subscribers alike, will be able to use FlyQ+. No one will be asked to download a new app.

(+) All FlyQ customers, lifetime and annual subscribers alike, will continue to get new ChartData updates and subsequent releases of FlyQ+ as they are released.

(+) The only difference will be that new features, beyond what was in FlyQ EFB 6.9.1, will only be enabled for annual subscribers. To be clear, this means that all users will continue to receive bug fixes and new releases as iOS updates are produced but only annual subscribers will benefit from the new features added in FlyQ+ 7.0 and later.<ref group="Full Email Communications">[[:File:FlyQ 3 02Oct2024.PNG]]</ref></blockquote>This update gave lifetime customers continued access to the app and miscellaneous fixes, as the company was still active and actively developing the app, but would exclude lifetime subscribers from any additional features now included in the equivalent subscriptions today.

== References ==
<references />
<references group="Full Email Communications" />

[[Category:Software companies]]

RepairShopr data privacy

2025-01-25T16:33:38Z

Tpat90:

=RepairShopr changing terms of service=

[[RepairShopr]], a [[Software as a service|software-as-a-service]] (SaaS) platform used primarily for [[customer-relationship management]] (CRM) and ticketing in repair shops, has as of December 2024 been the subject of scrutiny, because of changes in its [[terms of service]]. While the platform was previously praised for its utility and robust features, concerns have arisen about data-usage policies and subscription practices after its acquisition by [[Synchro]], leading to dissatisfaction among long-term users.<ref name=":1">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu_rjYHZj9I</ref>

==Background==
Initially developed by Troy Anderson, RepairShopr gained popularity as an affordable and effective CRM solution for repair businesses. Its features included [[QuickBooks]] integration, shipping automation, and caller-ID syncing with ticket statuses. Users valued its simplicity and responsiveness to feedback. Following its sale to Synchro, however, the platform has faced criticism for declining functionality, increased pricing, and controversial updates to its terms of service.<ref name=":2">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASJE0501nOA</ref>

==Key issues==

===AI tools and data usage===
The most contentious issue involves RepairShopr’s updated terms of service, which grant the platform the right to use "user content" and "usage information" to train AI tools. While Synchro claims no current AI features are operational, the terms allow for future implementation. Critics argue this represents a violation of privacy, as user content includes communications with customers, which are considered sensitive business data.<ref name=":0">https://www.repairshopr.com/repairshopr-user-access-and-license-agreement. [https://web.archive.org/web/20250106203556/https://www.repairshopr.com/repairshopr-user-access-and-license-agreement Archived] from the original on January 6, 2025. Retrieved January 17, 2025.</ref>

===Opt-out policies===
Users must opt out of data collection for AI training by directly contacting the company. Previously collected data, however, remain usable under the terms, creating further concerns about consent and [[retroactive policy enforcement]]. This policy is outlined under the '''"Intellectual Property; Reservation of Rights"''' section of the RepairShopr User Access and License Agreement, specifically the sixth point:<ref name=":0" /><blockquote>"If you wish to opt out of any future collection and aggregation by Servably of your User Content or Usage Information in an anonymous form in order to train Servably’s AI Tools, please contact us as set forth below. For clarity, such opt-out will apply only on a go-forward basis and will not obligate Servably to cease using any previously anonymized and aggregated User Content or other Usage Information as otherwise permitted in this Agreement."</blockquote>Furthermore, the opt-out process must be initiated by the business owner, which limits the ability of individual employees or customers of the business to safeguard data. Per Louis Rossmann’s account, the changes to the terms were not disclosed until after they had already taken effect, leaving a window of time where data could have been collected without the user’s knowledge or consent.<ref name=":1" />

===Increased costs and decline in functionality===
Since the acquisition, RepairShopr’s subscription fees have increased by 40%, with users reporting degraded service quality. Core functionalities, such as email communication with customers, have experienced extended downtimes, undermining its role as a CRM tool.<ref name=":2" />

===Transparency and communication===
Users were notified of changes to the terms of service by email late in December 2024, with the new policies already having been in effect for weeks. Many users criticized the lack of proactive communication, claiming the updates were poorly communicated and buried under non-critical updates.<ref name=":1" />

==Broader implications==
This case reflects broader trends in SaaS:
*'''Erosion of ownership rights:''' Platforms increasingly transition to subscription-based models, asserting greater control over user data and functionality.
*'''AI training and data ethics:''' Policies allowing AI training on user-generated data raise ethical and legal concerns about privacy and informed consent.
*'''Consumer trust:''' Poor communication and retroactive application of terms erode trust in service providers.
*'''Transparency in terms of service:''' SaaS providers should clearly communicate terms changes, ensuring users explicitly consent to updates.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
*[[Retroactive policy enforcement]]
*[[Consumer rights in SaaS platforms]]
*[[AI training and data-privacy ethics]]

[[Category:Term Spiking]]
[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:RepairShopr]]
[[Category:Servably]]
[[Category:Consumer rights]]
[[Category:Subscription-based services]]

Adobe sued by FTC over hidden fees in subscription plans

2025-01-21T19:14:53Z

Tpat90: Reverted edit by 2001:67C:6EC:203:192:42:116:191 (talk) to last revision by Keith

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against Adobe Inc. and two of its executives, alleging deceptive subscription practices that violate federal consumer protection laws. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Adobe of concealing critical terms of its subscription plans and creating obstacles to cancellation.

== Key Allegations ==

# '''Hidden Early Termination Fees (ETFs):'''
#* Adobe allegedly pre-selected its "Annual, Paid Monthly" (APM) subscription plan as the default option for users signing up for services like Creative Cloud.
#* While marketed as a monthly payment plan, the APM plan locks users into a year-long contract. If canceled within the first year, users are charged an ETF amounting to 50% of the remaining annual payments. [https://natlawreview.com/article/ftc-sues-adobe-and-execs-illegal-hidden-fees]
#* The FTC claims the ETF was buried in fine print or hidden behind hyperlinks that most consumers would not notice during the sign-up process. [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling]
# '''Complex Cancellation Process:'''
#* Adobe's cancellation process reportedly requires navigating through multiple pages, re-entering passwords, providing feedback, and reviewing warnings about fees.
#* Consumers attempting to cancel online or via customer service often faced dropped calls, multiple transfers, and continued charges even after cancellation attempts. [https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/06/ftc-says-adobe-hid-key-terms-annual-paid-monthly-subscription-plan-set-roadblocks-deter-customer]
# '''Violation of Consumer Protection Laws:'''
#* The FTC alleges that Adobe's practices violate the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) and the FTC Act by:
#** Failing to clearly disclose material terms upfront.
#** Charging consumers without obtaining express informed consent.
#** Not providing simple mechanisms for stopping recurring charges. [https://www.gtlaw-financialservicesobserver.com/2024/07/ftc-targets-adobe-for-hidden-fees-and-deceptive-subscription-practices/]

== FTC's Legal Action ==
The FTC is seeking:

* A permanent injunction to stop Adobe from continuing these practices.
* Civil penalties and monetary relief for affected consumers. [https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/advertising-marketing-branding/1496334/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-for-unfair-subscription-practices]

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

== Adobe's Response ==
Adobe has denied the allegations, stating that its subscription services are transparent and designed to provide flexibility to users. The company plans to contest the lawsuit in court. [https://www.archpaper.com/2024/07/the-ftc-is-suing-software-giant-adobe-over-hidden-fees-and-an-overly-complicated-cancellation-process/]

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

== TL;DR ==
The FTC has sued Adobe for allegedly deceiving consumers with hidden early termination fees in its "Annual, Paid Monthly" subscription plans and making cancellations unnecessarily difficult. The lawsuit accuses Adobe of violating federal consumer protection laws and seeks penalties and injunctive relief. Adobe denies wrongdoing, and the case is ongoing as of January 2025.

Lenovo X1 Carbon

2025-01-21T13:25:02Z

Tpat90:

{{Incomplete}}

This article outlines the various anti-consumer measures used in the Lenovo X1 Carbon series of laptops. Some concepts may overlap with [[Lenovo]]'s general practices, a Chinese-American multinational technology company.

=== Hardware Vendor Lockout (BIOS Whitelist) ===
Most models of the Lenovo X1 Carbon will fail to post if the user changes their WWAN broadband card to a WWAN card that is not on the Lenovo Vendor Whitelist<ref name=":1">[https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/ThinkPad_mobile_Internet "ThinkPad mobile Internet"] - wiki.archlinux.org</ref>. If a user intends to use a WWAN card manufactured by another company, which are typically cheaper than the Lenovo factory-installed WWAN cards, the computer will not boot until the user removes the card. Evasion of these whitelists has been outlined in the ArchLinux wiki<ref name=":1" />, but success is very limited.

The intent behind this vendor-lockout is ambiguous, and not well-documented officially by Lenovo.

==== Resulting cost for the consumer ====

Lenovo currently charges $298 USD to install a Quectel RM520N-GL 5G Sub6 from the factory<ref name=":0" />.
[[File:Lenovo store screenshot.png|thumb|right| Pricing options for WWAN card (Lenovo X1 Carbon gen2) <ref name=":0"> [[:File:Lenovo store screenshot.png|Screenshot or pricing options for WWAN card of Lenovo Laptop]]</ref>]]

Some used options of similar modems can, at the time of writing, be purchased for $150 USD<ref>[https://www.ebay.com/itm/296886818084 "Quectel RM520N-GL"] - ebay.com - 17 Jan 2025 - Archived Page: https://archive.is/IkmZV</ref>. 4G modems can be purchased for even less<ref>[https://www.ebay.com/itm/196914042141 "NEW Dell V8KN6 Sierra Wireless AirPrime EM7455 DW5811e LTE 4G WWAN Card"] - ebay.com - 17 Jan 2025 - Archived Page: https://archive.is/uSubr</ref>.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Product lines]]

Volkswagen car-location data-exposure incident

2025-01-21T13:23:22Z

Tpat90:

{{Under_Development
|date=January 2025
|stage=early
|priority=high
}}

In 2024, Volkswagen experienced a data security incident involving customer vehicle information stored on Amazon Web Services (AWS). The incident occurred when Volkswagen's implementation of [[CARIAD]], a system used for storing terabytes of customer data, was discovered to have publicly accessible storage instances due to a misconfiguration<ref name=":0">[https://cybersecuritynews.com/volkswagen-data-breach/]"Volkswagen Data Breach: 800,000 Electric Car Owners’ Data Leaked" written by Guru Baran (co-founder of Cyber Security News and GBHackers On Security). [https://archive.ph/tVDzM Archived] from the original on December 28, 2024. Retrieved on January 15, 2025.</ref>.
== Background ==

This incident occurred within a broader context of automotive data security concerns. Modern vehicles increasingly collect and transmit various types of data, including location information, driving patterns, and user identification<ref name=":1">[https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2024/05/cars-consumer-data-unlawful-collection-use]"Cars & Consumer Data: On Unlawful Collection & Use" written in collaboration by the Office of Technology and the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection in the Bureau of Consumer Protection. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240514181955/https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2024/05/cars-consumer-data-unlawful-collection-use Archived] from the original on May 14, 2024. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref>. The automotive industry has previously faced scrutiny regarding data collection practices, with documented instances of manufacturers collecting and sharing vehicle data with third parties.

== The Incident ==
[[File:Volkswagen.png|alt=Pie Chart showing the total cars affected including the severity of each(whether its location was exposed down to a radius of 10cm or 10km) and breakdown by brand|thumb|Pie Chart showing the total cars affected and breakdown by brand]]
The core issue stemmed from a misconfiguration in Volkswagen's AWS storage implementation, which left customer data publicly accessible without proper authentication or access restrictions<ref name=":0" />. This exposed sensitive information about vehicle locations, EV battery statistics and sensitive customer information. The incident not only breached customer trust, but Volkswagen's own Terms of Service.

== Industry Context ==

The incident highlighted ongoing discussions about automotive data security and privacy. Similar concerns were raised during the [[2020 Massachusetts Right to Repair ballot initiative]], where major automotive manufacturers including General Motors, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, and Honda invested approximately $25 million in campaign advertising discussing data security implications.

== Regulatory Response ==

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously expressed concerns about automotive data security. Following the 2020 Massachusetts Right to Repair initiative, NHTSA official Carrie Gules issued a letter addressing potential security vulnerabilities in vehicle data systems{{Citation needed|date=January 2024|reason=Letter reference needed}}.

== Broader Implications ==

This incident demonstrates the broader challenges facing the automotive industry regarding data security and privacy. It has been documented that automotive manufacturers regularly collect various types of vehicle data<ref name=":1" />, including:
* Location information
* Driving patterns
* Vehicle operation metrics
* User behavior data

Some manufacturers have established partnerships with data aggregators and insurance companies for data-sharing purposes. For example, General Motors has been documented to share driving data with LexisNexis and insurance companies, including information about:

* Vehicle location data
* Turning radius information
* Stop times
* Drive times

== See Also ==
* [[Data Privacy]]
* [[Right to Repair movement]]
* [[CARIAD]]
* [[Volkswagen Group]]
* [[2020 Massachusetts Right to Repair ballot initiative]]
* [[General Motors Data Theft]]

== References ==
<references />
''Note: This article represents an ongoing situation and may be updated as more information becomes available.''

[[Category:Data breaches]]

[[Category:AWS security incidents]]


== Further Reading ==
* [https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/volkswagen-konzern-datenleck-wir-wissen-wo-dein-auto-steht-a-e12d33d0-97bc-493c-96d1-aa5892861027 For the link to the news source which was tipped off by a German hacktivist group]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20241227094207/https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/volkswagen-konzern-datenleck-wir-wissen-wo-dein-auto-steht-a-e12d33d0-97bc-493c-96d1-aa5892861027 Archived] from the original on December 27, 2024. Retrieved January 15, 2025.
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agcp37iiWLc&t=188s Youtube video with mentioned credits for more information].
[[Category:Automotive privacy]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]
[[Category:CARIAD]]
[[Category:Incidents]]

Volkswagen car-location data-exposure incident

2025-01-21T13:22:40Z

Tpat90:

{{Under_Development
|date=January 2025
|stage=early
|priority=high
}}

In 2024, Volkswagen experienced a data security incident involving customer vehicle information stored on Amazon Web Services (AWS). The incident occurred when Volkswagen's implementation of [[CARIAD]], a system used for storing terabytes of customer data, was discovered to have publicly accessible storage instances due to a misconfiguration<ref name=":0">[https://cybersecuritynews.com/volkswagen-data-breach/]"Volkswagen Data Breach: 800,000 Electric Car Owners’ Data Leaked" written by Guru Baran (co-founder of Cyber Security News and GBHackers On Security). [https://archive.ph/tVDzM Archived] from the original on December 28, 2024. Retrieved on January 15, 2025.</ref>.
== Background ==

This incident occurred within a broader context of automotive data security concerns. Modern vehicles increasingly collect and transmit various types of data, including location information, driving patterns, and user identification<ref name=":1">[https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2024/05/cars-consumer-data-unlawful-collection-use]"Cars & Consumer Data: On Unlawful Collection & Use" written in collaboration by the Office of Technology and the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection in the Bureau of Consumer Protection. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240514181955/https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2024/05/cars-consumer-data-unlawful-collection-use Archived] from the original on May 14, 2024. Retrieved January 15, 2025.</ref>. The automotive industry has previously faced scrutiny regarding data collection practices, with documented instances of manufacturers collecting and sharing vehicle data with third parties.

== The Incident ==
[[File:Volkswagen.png|alt=Pie Chart showing the total cars affected including the severity of each(whether its location was exposed down to a radius of 10cm or 10km) and breakdown by brand|thumb|Pie Chart showing the total cars affected and breakdown by brand]]
The core issue stemmed from a misconfiguration in Volkswagen's AWS storage implementation, which left customer data publicly accessible without proper authentication or access restrictions<ref name=":0" />. This exposed sensitive information about vehicle locations, EV battery statistics and sensitive customer information. The incident not only breached customer trust, but Volkswagen's own Terms of Service.

== Industry Context ==

The incident highlighted ongoing discussions about automotive data security and privacy. Similar concerns were raised during the [[2020 Massachusetts Right to Repair ballot initiative]], where major automotive manufacturers including General Motors, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, and Honda invested approximately $25 million in campaign advertising discussing data security implications.

== Regulatory Response ==

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously expressed concerns about automotive data security. Following the 2020 Massachusetts Right to Repair initiative, NHTSA official Carrie Gules issued a letter addressing potential security vulnerabilities in vehicle data systems{{Citation needed|date=January 2024|reason=Letter reference needed}}.

== Broader Implications ==

This incident demonstrates the broader challenges facing the automotive industry regarding data security and privacy. It has been documented that automotive manufacturers regularly collect various types of vehicle data<ref name=":1" />, including:
* Location information
* Driving patterns
* Vehicle operation metrics
* User behavior data

Some manufacturers have established partnerships with data aggregators and insurance companies for data-sharing purposes. For example, General Motors has been documented to share driving data with LexisNexis and insurance companies, including information about:

* Vehicle location data
* Turning radius information
* Stop times
* Drive times

== See Also ==
* [[Data Privacy]]
* [[Right to Repair movement]]
* [[CARIAD]]
* [[Volkswagen Group]]
* [[2020 Massachusetts Right to Repair ballot initiative]]
* [[General Motors Data Theft]]

== References ==
<references />
''Note: This article represents an ongoing situation and may be updated as more information becomes available.''

[[Category:Data breaches]]

[[Category:AWS security incidents]]


== Further Reading ==
3. [https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/volkswagen-konzern-datenleck-wir-wissen-wo-dein-auto-steht-a-e12d33d0-97bc-493c-96d1-aa5892861027 For the link to the news source which was tipped off by a German hacktivist group]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20241227094207/https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/volkswagen-konzern-datenleck-wir-wissen-wo-dein-auto-steht-a-e12d33d0-97bc-493c-96d1-aa5892861027 Archived] from the original on December 27, 2024. Retrieved January 15, 2025.

4. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agcp37iiWLc&t=188s Youtube video with mentioned credits for more information].
[[Category:Automotive privacy]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]
[[Category:CARIAD]]
[[Category:Incidents]]

Tom Evans Audio copyright strike

2025-01-21T13:20:22Z

Tpat90:

=== Upload ===

In November 2024, YouTube creator [https://www.youtube.com/@MendItMark Mend It Mark] uploaded a video in which he repaired a [https://audiodesign.co.uk/styled-23/styled-27/index.html MasterGroove SR Mk3] pre-amp made by Tom Evans Audio. In the video, he took the pre-amp apart and to help diagnose the issue, he reverse engineered the device and created some schematic diagrams.<ref>https://archive.org/details/the-gbp-25-000-pre-amp-that-went-wrong-tom-evans-mastergroove-sr-mk-iii-rjbp-fsfzi-i</ref> He also made his viewers aware of the fact that the price of this pre-amp is £25,000 (about 30,000 USD) and that many of the electrical components in the pre-amp had the part numbers scraped off.

=== After Upload ===

After the video was published, Tom Evans Audio issued a copyright strike against the video which resulted in the video being taken down. Mend It Mark was not informed on what the copyright infringement was.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYpPNCzQCVQ</ref> This decision was met with criticism from creators on YouTube since it questions whether or not showing a circuit design in a video could be considered copyright infringement.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJYIhLQJtTs</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93QlQN_1yUA</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15AiQv-EiGM</ref> In December 2024, Louis Rossmann re-uploaded Mend It Mark's original video to his channel with his own introduction.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hVe_spuJQI</ref> As of January 2025, the video is still up on his channel.

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Companies]]

EVGA

2025-01-21T13:07:03Z

Tpat90:

{{Incomplete}}{{InfoboxCompany
| Company = EVGA Corporation
| Name = EVGA
| Type = Private
| Founded = April 13, 1999
| Industry = Computer Hardware
| Official Website = https://evga.com
| Logo = EVGA_Logo.svg.png
}}

* [[wikipedia:EVGA_Corporation|'''EVGA Corporation''']] is an American computer hardware company that produces motherboards, gaming laptops, power supplies, all-in-one liquid coolers, computer cases, and gaming mice.
* Founded on April 13, 1999, it is headquartered in Brea, California.

== Controversies ==

{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Controversy
!Year
!Background Info
!Aftermath
!Related Article
!Related Video(s)
|-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

== General References: ==
<references />

[[Category:Companies]]
[[Category:EVGA]]

Sony's WF-1000XM4 earbuds

2025-01-21T12:55:14Z

Tpat90:

{{Incomplete}}

The video titled "Why you should never buy Sony earphones until they fix battery defects!" discusses significant battery issues in Sony's WF-1000XM4 earbuds, particularly after firmware updates. Users have reported severe uneven battery drain, with the affected earbud becoming excessively hot during charging. The common factor appears to be the 1.4.2 firmware update.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyHeadphones/comments/x7mx2n/wf1000xm4_severe_battery_issues/?utm_source=chatgpt.com&rdt=65095 Reddit] [https://archive.is/V0cUP Archived]

'''Key Points:'''

* '''Battery Drain Issues:''' Many users have experienced rapid battery depletion in one earbud, leading to significantly reduced usage time.
* '''Overheating During Charging:''' Some users have reported that the affected earbud becomes unusually hot while charging, indicating potential battery damage.
* '''Firmware Update Concerns:''' The 1.4.2 firmware update is commonly associated with these battery issues. Users have noted that downgrading to earlier firmware versions may alleviate the problem, but this is not a guaranteed solution.

'''Recommendations:'''

* '''Contact Sony Support:''' If you experience these issues, reach out to Sony's customer service for assistance. They may offer warranty replacements or repairs.
* '''Monitor Firmware Updates:''' Be cautious with firmware updates. Before updating, check user forums and official communications for any reported issues related to the new firmware.
* '''Community Feedback:''' Engage with online communities, such as Reddit's r/SonyHeadphones, to share experiences and solutions with other users facing similar problems.

[[Category:Sony]]
[[Category:Products]]

Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

2025-01-21T12:44:41Z

Tpat90:

[[Category:Legal Lockout]]
=== The EPCOT Death Lawsuit and Disney's Arbitration Clause ===
In a wrongful death lawsuit<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf]]</ref>, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) & Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on October 5, 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney with negligence in accommodating her food allergy which contributed to her death.<ref name=nprdwd>https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney</ref>

==Background==
Dr. Tangsuan, a family medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy & nuts. She & her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, ''specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties.'' Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies & receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name=nytdwd>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html</ref>

==The EULA Roofie Attempt==
In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate user agreements:

# The Disney+ user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his PlayStation
# Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

This represented a classic example of a [[EULA roofie]], where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Piccolo had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, he was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates when the food served by a restaurant on their premises killed his wife; regardless of whether the issue was related to the streaming service.

Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html</ref>

===Legal Arguments===
Piccolo's attorneys filed a 123-page response calling Disney's argument "preposterous" & "fatally flawed" for several reasons:

* Mr. Piccolo brought the lawsuit as Personal Representative of his wife's estate, not as him the individual
* The estate itself never agreed to any arbitration terms
* The estate did not exist at the time Mr. Piccolo accepted the Disney+ terms, as Dr. Tangsuan was still alive
* The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was ''specifically limited to disputes concerning the streaming service''
* Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation before raising the issue

The attorneys argued that "the notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience."<ref name=nytdwd />

==Procedural Timeline==
A concerning aspect of Disney's attempt was that they first participated in discovery and filed an Answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense; only later trying to use the EULA to avoid litigation. As noted in the August 2nd Response: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>

==Key Legal Issues Around Consumer Rights==
===Meeting of Minds===
The Response highlighted fundamental contract law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated basic principles of contract formation including "meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties)" and "good-faith dealing."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>

===Unconscionability===
The Response detailed both procedural & substantive unconscionability in Disney's EULA:

* '''Procedural Unconscionability:'''
** "There was no showing that Mr. Piccolo was given any explanation of the arbitration clauses in The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement."
** "The so-called binding arbitration provision was merely contained in a link. With respect to the Disney Terms of Use, the link was not even referenced or hyperlinked on the Disney+ registration page. It was buried within another document that was hyperlinked."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 27-28</ref>

* '''Substantive Unconscionability:'''
** The arbitration provisions "could present a problem for more than just their own client"
** "In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+"<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 30</ref>

"The Florida Supreme Court has acknowledged there is some overlap in the analysis of whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists and whether an arbitrable issue exists, noting: 'It is something of a chicken and egg situation as to which comes first.' This highlights the fundamental problem with modern EULAs - consumers cannot meaningfully assess what rights they're giving up when agreeing to terms that may be interpreted to cover any future dispute with any related corporate entity."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 19</ref>

==Resolution==
Following significant public backlash & media attention highlighting how this could affect Disney+'s 150 million subscribers, Disney withdrew its motion to compel arbitration in August 2024. Josh D'Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, stated: "At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations... With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss."<ref name=nprdwd />

==Significance==

The Response specifically addressed how Disney's [[EULA roofie]] attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in serious cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the [[EULA roofie]] phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrates how companies use complex legal documents & digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.
== References ==
[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Lawsuits]]
[[Category:EULA roofieing]]

Blu-Ray Ultra-HD DRM

2025-01-21T12:30:12Z

Tpat90:

{{Incomplete}}

Ultra HD Blu-ray uses internet connected AACCS DRM requiring wifi every time a disk is played, if AACS servers shut down disks are permanently unplayable .

[[Category:Digital rights management]]

Xiaomi Phone unlock requirements and procedure

2025-01-21T12:24:36Z

Tpat90:

{{Incomplete}}

The following are some of the requirements/procedures needed to unlock a Xiaomi phone, as stated in their [https://new.c.mi.com/global/post/101245 FAQ]

* Xiaomi requires users to create and link a Xiaomi account to their phone (and accept the [https://static.account.xiaomi.com/html/agreement/user/global/en_US.html EULA] for creating an account), and keep it linked for at least a week
** Stated directly in the EULA is the following<blockquote>6. Modification of this Agreement Xiaomi may need to revise this Agreement and various rules from time to time in accordance with the promulgation of laws and regulations, the development of the Internet, and the adjustment of the company's operating conditions and business strategies. We will notify you of the new agreement in an appropriate manner, and you may view the latest version of the terms of the agreement on the relevant service page. **Once the revised agreement and rules are announced, they will take effect immediately and become an integral part of this Agreement. If you do not agree to the modified terms, you shall immediately discontinue your use of our services.** Your continued access or use of our services shall be deemed as your acceptance of the modified agreement.</blockquote>
* Xiaomi requires users to attempt an unlock and wait a week before attempting again <blockquote>Click on Unlock » Unlock anyway. On your first attempt, Mi Unlock will flash the message _Couldn’t unlock. Please unlock 168 hours later._ Follow the timer / waiting period to unlock successfully.</blockquote>
* Xiaomi requires users to be using an Intel based PC to unlock their phone (However, other CPU vendors work fine with the unlock tool on Linux)
* Unlocking your phone will void your phone's warranty
* You can only unlock one phone every 30 days and 4 phones every year

[[Category:Xiaomi]]

Sony x900h television

2025-01-21T12:22:54Z

Tpat90: incomplete, some ref work done

{{Incomplete}}

Sony never fixed the blur issue in their X900H TV. It was advertised as supporting 4K120.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20210111215436/https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/televisions/xbr-x900h-series/specifications</ref><ref>https://www.avsforum.com/threads/owners-thread-for-the-sony-x900h-no-price-talk.3125278/page-1819</ref><ref>https://videocardz.com/newz/sony-fixes-4k120hz-blurriness-on-x900h-xh90-tvs-by-applying-a-sharpening-filter</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Sony]]
[[Category:Products]]

Newag

2025-01-21T12:15:43Z

Tpat90:

{{Under Development|date=15 January 2025|stage=Writing|priority=Medium to Low}}

'''Newag S.A.''' (pronounced ''"nevag"'') is a Polish company based in Nowy Sącz that specializes in the production, maintenance, and modernization of railway rolling stock.<ref>https://www.newag.pl/en/company/history/</ref>

== Backdoor Incident ==
In 2022, when maintenance was done on trains manufactured by '''Newag''', malicious code and backdoors were discovered which were found to make the trains break down after third-party repairs, prevent them from entering a competitors workshop and also stop working after a set amount of time standing still.<ref>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/manufacturer-deliberately-bricked-trains-repaired-by-competitors-hackers-find/?utm_source=chatgpt.com</ref> The investigation against '''Newag''' is still on-going.

== Sources ==
<references />

John Deere

2025-01-17T20:27:18Z

Tpat90:

{{StubNotice}}
'''[https://www.deere.com John Deere]''' is a leading manufacturer of Agricultural, and Heavy Machinery. Founded in 1837, they are primarily known for their heavy-duty agriculture machines, such as tractors and combines. They have recently faced criticism for their business practices, especially in the realm of equipment repair. These practices have raised concerns among farmers, independent repair technicians, and consumer advocacy groups.<ref name="jdflrtrt">https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260895/john-deere-ftc-lawsuit-right-to-repair-tractors</ref>

== Consumer Protection Profile ==
[[File:John deere doc.png|thumb|524x524px|Front Page of the FTC's Suit Against John Deere<ref name="DCRCCN325">https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/DeereCoREDACTEDComplaintCaseNo325-cv-50017.pdf</ref>]]

==== Repairability ====

* John Deere limits access to essential repair software and diagnostic tools.<ref name="dith3">https://pirg.org/resources/deere-in-the-headlights-3/</ref>
* Restrictive policies prevent farmers from performing repairs or utilizing independent repair shops, forcing them to rely on authorized dealerships.<ref name="jdflrtrt" />
* Farmers have reported being unable to fix minor mechanical issues without John Deere's proprietary tools.<ref name="fssdcp">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-states-sue-deere-company-protect-farmers-unfair-corporate-tactics-high-repair-costs</ref>
* John Deere has allegedly unlawfully inflated repair costs by controlling the repair service market.

==== Monopoly On Repairs ====

* John Deere's control over the repair market has been likened to monopolistic behavior.
* By restricting, and controlling access to repair resources, and parts, the company has effectively eliminated competition in the repair market.

==== Digital Rights and Ownership ====

* John Deere uses software locks, and digital rights management (DRM) systems that control user autonomy.<ref>https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/john-deere-repair-software/</ref>
* These measures prevent Farmers, and Independent repair technicians from completing repairs without access to the proprietary software.<ref name="dith3"/>

==== Right to Repair Legislation Opposition ====

* John Deer has actively lobbied against right-to-repair legislation in multiple states, and on the Federal level. <ref>https://pirg.org/resources/john-deere-and-right-to-repair-over-the-years/?utm_source=chatgpt.com</ref><ref>https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/midwest-farmers-right-to-repair-agriculture-john-deere-illinois/?utm_source=chatgpt.com</ref>
* Despite signing a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation in 2023, the company has been accused of undermining the spirit of the agreement.<ref>[https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/11/12/is-john-deeres-day-of-reckoning-soon-at-hand/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%3A%20Deere%20embeds%20authorization%20codes%20in,dealers%20have%20access%20to%20all%20the%20verification%20codes. https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/11/12/is-john-deeres-day-of-reckoning-soon-at-hand/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%3A%20Deere%20embeds%20authorization%20codes%20in,dealers%20have%20access%20to%20all%20the%20verification%20codes.]</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-RgOUT3zeo</ref>

== Consumer Protection Incidents ==

==== FTC Lawsuit (January 2025) ====
On January 15, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against John Deere, alleging anticompetitive practices in the repair market.<ref name="fssdcp" /><ref name="DCRCCN325" /> The lawsuit claims that:

* John Deere unlawfully inflated repair costs by monopolizing the repair service market.
* The company's restrictive policies violated consumer protection laws, and limited farmers' ability to maintain their equipment.

== References ==
<references />

Adobe ToS update gives the company rights over consumers' works

2025-01-15T20:58:09Z

Tpat90:

Adobe, a computer software company that creates programs for content creation, editing, and publishing, has sparked controversy with their updated Terms of Service (ToS) which declares that by accepting, the user will grant Adobe a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license"[https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html#:~:text=Content%2C%20you%20grant%20us-,a%20non%2Dexclusive%2C%20worldwide%2C%20royalty%2Dfree%20license,-to%20do%20the%20following] to their content to '''reproduce''', '''distribute''', '''create derivative works''', '''publicly display''', '''publicly preform''', and '''sublicense [https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html#:~:text=reproduce%C2%A0%C2%A0%E2%80%A8%0A(for,your%20Cloud%20Content).]''' the user's content.

This sparks controversy because it can potentially violate a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), and users can not access their content without first agreeing to the updated ToS, leaving many users without access to their unfinished projects. Furthermore, Adobe claims they do not use your content to train generative AI, but does admit they may use your content for machine learning and that you always have the option to opt-out despite there not being an "opt-out" button on the updated ToS screen shown below.

[[File:Adobe tos.jpg|thumb|Adobe's updated Terms of Service, which does not include an "opt-out" nor a "decline" option.]]

[[Category:Articles under development]]

Adobe ToS update gives the company rights over consumers' works

2025-01-15T20:57:46Z

Tpat90:

Newag

2025-01-15T20:17:56Z

Tpat90:

{{Under Development|date=15 January 2025|stage=Writing|priority=Medium to Low}}

'''Newag S.A.''' (pronounced ''"nevag"'') is a Polish company, based in Nowy Sącz, specializing in the production, maintenance, and modernization of railway rolling stock.<ref>https://www.newag.pl/en/company/history/</ref>

== Backdoor Incident ==
In 2022 maintenance was done on trains manufactured by '''Newag''' which uncovered malicious software code and backdoors.<ref>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/manufacturer-deliberately-bricked-trains-repaired-by-competitors-hackers-find/?utm_source=chatgpt.com</ref> The investigation against '''Newag''' is still on-going.
== Sources ==
<references />

Amazon PhotosPlus discontinuation

2025-01-15T19:15:06Z

Tpat90:

Amazon PhotosPlus was a Subscription based service that offered users the ability to display their chosen photos on their devices as the "primary content". Additionally, It provided 25GB of Amazon Photos storage, and costed 2$ per month. Announced<ref>https://www.pocket-lint.com/what-is-amazon-photosplus/</ref> in October 2023, Amazon sent an email informing its users that they were discontinuing<ref>https://www.threads.net/@wheelsee/post/C-58LrqSbYW?xmt=AQGzdSySswLxRPEtQdHvzY0PMn5k0eXCG2lzMqmc0irZoIQ</ref> the service, cancelling it on September 12, 2024.

The Amazon Echo Show 8 was a Digital Frame, launched at 149.99$. For 10$ more, you could get the Amazon Echo Show 8 Photos Edition, which came with 6 months of PhotosPlus and the ability to display your photos as the "primary" content. Amazon spokesperson Courtney Ramirez<ref>https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/22/23885332/amazon-echo-show-8-photos-edition-digital-frame-price-fee</ref> confirmed that “Occasionally, Alexa will provide content suggestions based on a customer’s interest. However, photos will remain the primary content.”

After the cancellation of the PhotosPlus Service, the Amazon Echo Show 8 Photos Edition is identical<ref>https://www.howtogeek.com/amazon-cancels-photosplus-subscription/</ref> to the Amazon Echo Show 8, and user who wish to display their photos have to do so with advertisements and promotional content.
== Sources ==
<references />
[[Category:Incidents]]

Amazon PhotosPlus discontinuation

2025-01-15T19:14:47Z

Tpat90: References corrected

Amazon PhotosPlus was a Subscription based service that offered users the ability to display their chosen photos on their devices as the "primary content". Additionally, It provided 25GB of Amazon Photos storage, and costed 2$ per month. Announced<ref>https://www.pocket-lint.com/what-is-amazon-photosplus/</ref> in October 2023, Amazon sent an email informing its users that they were discontinuing<ref>https://www.threads.net/@wheelsee/post/C-58LrqSbYW?xmt=AQGzdSySswLxRPEtQdHvzY0PMn5k0eXCG2lzMqmc0irZoIQ</ref> the service, cancelling it on September 12, 2024.

The Amazon Echo Show 8 was a Digital Frame, launched at 149.99$. For 10$ more, you could get the Amazon Echo Show 8 Photos Edition, which came with 6 months of PhotosPlus and the ability to display your photos as the "primary" content. Amazon spokesperson Courtney Ramirez<ref>https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/22/23885332/amazon-echo-show-8-photos-edition-digital-frame-price-fee</ref> confirmed that “Occasionally, Alexa will provide content suggestions based on a customer’s interest. However, photos will remain the primary content.”

After the cancellation of the PhotosPlus Service, the Amazon Echo Show 8 Photos Edition is identical<ref>https://www.howtogeek.com/amazon-cancels-photosplus-subscription/</ref> to the Amazon Echo Show 8, and user who wish to display their photos have to do so with advertisements and promotional content.

== Sources ==
<references />
Sources:

https://www.pocket-lint.com/what-is-amazon-photosplus/

https://www.threads.net/@wheelsee/post/C-58LrqSbYW?xmt=AQGzdSySswLxRPEtQdHvzY0PMn5k0eXCG2lzMqmc0irZoIQ

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/22/23885332/amazon-echo-show-8-photos-edition-digital-frame-price-fee

https://www.howtogeek.com/amazon-cancels-photosplus-subscription/

[[Category:Incidents]]

Newag

2025-01-15T14:17:26Z

Tpat90:

Newag

2025-01-15T14:16:10Z

Tpat90: Created page with "'''Newag S.A.''' (pronounced ''"nevag"'') is a Polish company, based in Nowy Sącz, specializing in the production, maintenance, and modernization of railway rolling stock.<ref>https://www.newag.pl/en/company/history/</ref> == Backdoor Incident == In 2022 maintenance was done on trains manufactured by '''Newag''' which uncovered malicious software code and backdoors.<ref>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/manufacturer-deliberately-bricked-trains-repaired-by-com..."

'''Newag S.A.''' (pronounced ''"nevag"'') is a Polish company, based in Nowy Sącz, specializing in the production, maintenance, and modernization of railway rolling stock.<ref>https://www.newag.pl/en/company/history/</ref>

== Backdoor Incident ==
In 2022 maintenance was done on trains manufactured by '''Newag''' which uncovered malicious software code and backdoors.<ref>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/manufacturer-deliberately-bricked-trains-repaired-by-competitors-hackers-find/?utm_source=chatgpt.com</ref> The investigation against '''Newag''' is still on-going.
<references />

Ancestry.com

2025-01-15T12:10:46Z

Tpat90:

{{StubNotice}}

Genealogy company based in the US.

== Cancellation policy ==
May charge a cancellation fee for "Subscriptions Longer than a Month, Billed Monthly" if you do not cancel within the first 14 days: <ref>https://www.ancestry.com/c/legal/renewal-cancellation-terms</ref>

<blockquote>
Where offered, some subscriptions longer than a month may be eligible for monthly billing. Even though you will be billed monthly, you are committing to the entire length of your subscription (e.g. 6 months or 12 months).

...

(1) cancel immediately for a full refund of the first month’s fee and immediate loss of access, or (2) cancel effective at the end of the first month, subject to a cancellation fee. If you change from this type of subscription to a different type of subscription before the end of your subscription term, you will receive a prorated refund for the remainder of the current paid month, and you may be charged a cancellation fee. For subscriptions purchased on www.ancestry.com, cancellation fees are the lesser of (i) $25 USD for 6-month subscriptions or $50 USD for 12-month subscriptions (plus any applicable taxes) or (ii) the remaining cost of your subscription
</blockquote>
[https://web.archive.org/web/20240824032751/https://www.ancestry.com/offers/subscribe Ancestry's older price pages] showed an offer which was following these cancellation terms along with a citation showing the commitment, however since then this has been removed from the page.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:anti-consumer]]
[[Category:Companies]]

Ford

2025-01-15T00:08:40Z

Tpat90:

{{StubNotice}}
----
Henry Ford made the first patent Ford automobile, the quadricycle in 1896. He then actually incorporated the Ford motor company in 1903. They're now a company known pretty well for anti-consumer behaviour, and automotive-typical practices like marked up parts sharing that probably started in the late 1990's.

=== Anti-Consumer Practices ===
Ford have been known recently for being the maker of America's most recalled vehicles. CEO Jim Farley recently said "no more recalls", and at least in Europe, that's been enforced by selling engines that break themselves and sometimes catch fire doing it, with the only recall being to fix the fire part. Ford have filed dangerous patents and have managed to find a way in the 2020's to make a software update go so wrong it bricks a vehicle.

Ford also have made some, luckily not realised patents for systems like one that feeds ads to distract the driver of their automobiles, and another patent for a system to annoy the owner of, restrict access to and then repossess or destroy vehicles where the owner "has defected" on finance payments.

Samcrac's 2024 video mini-series on his Aston Martin shows the pettiness and stupidity of either Ford or Aston Martin, but certainly Ford's design of needing a VIN-and-vehicle-specific "Car Configuration File" they (and now Aston Martin as its own corporate entity) only have control of to turn a Volvo C30's ECU into one for an exotic Aston Martin, is a bit ridiculous, and the fact Aston Martin wouldn't simply give Samcrac the simple file without attaching $15,000 in overpriced and completely unneeded repairs, is even worse.

==== Footnote from the author ====
I live in the EU. Why does this company not understand we do not want more dropshipped Volkswagen ID4's carrying the nameplates of once actually good cars? There are two of those now (The "Capri" and "Explorer"), and something else that's very similar (the "Mustang" Mach-E). We don't want more shoddily designed compact SUV's made by another manufacturer, and it's proven competing with yourself is stupid and in the end, you won't win doing that.