|
| ▲ | qudent 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think the fact that it is not possible to put hard spending caps on API keys might be ruled illegal by some EU court soon enough, at least when they sell to consumers (given the explosion of vibecoding end-users making some apps). When I use OpenAI, Openrouter etc., I can put 10 $ on my API key, and when the key leaks, someone can use these 10 $ and that's it. With Google, there is no way to do that - there are extremely complicated "billing alerts" https://firebase.google.com/docs/projects/billing/advanced-b... , but these are time-delayed e-mails and there is no out of the box way to do the straightforward thing, which is to actually turn off the tap automatically once a budget is spent. The only native way to set a limit enforced immediately is by rate limiting - but I didn't see params which made it safe while usable in my case. (a legal angle might be the Unfair Contract Terms Directive in the EU, though plenty of individual countries have their own laws that may apply to my understanding. A quite equivalent situation were the "bill shock" situations for mobile phone users, where people went on vacation and arrived home to an outrageously high roaming bill that they didn't understand they incurred. This is also limited today in the EU; by law, the service must be stopped after a certain charge is incurred) |
| |
| ▲ | falcor84 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > When I use OpenAI, Openrouter etc., I can put 10 $ on my API key, and when the key leaks, someone can use these 10 $ and that's it. On that note, I'll just mention that I had discovered over the last while that when you prepay $10 into your Anthropic account, either directly, or via the newer "Extra usage" in subscription plans, and then use Claude Code, they will repeatedly overbill you, putting you into a negative balance. I actually complained and they told me that they allow the "final query" to complete rather than cutting it off mid-process, which is of course silly, because Claude Code is typically used for long sessions, where the benefit of being cut off 52% into the task rather than 51% into it is essentially meaningless. I ended up paying for these so far, but would hope that someone with more free time sues them on it. | |
| ▲ | Nathanba 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | let's hope it happens soon, I'm pretty sick of this reality where companies get to charge you whatever they want and it's designed to always be your fault | | |
| ▲ | Eddy_Viscosity2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I'm pretty sick of this reality where companies get to charge you whatever they want and it's designed to always be your fault But have you considered it from the companies POV? Charging whatever you like and its always the customers fault is a pretty sweet deal. Up next in the innovation pipeline is charging customers extra fees for something or other. It'll be great! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dathinab an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the term you are looking for is "negligence". But not in the causal sense of the word but in the legal "the company didn't folly the legal required base line of acting with due diligence". In general companies are required to act with diligence, this is also e.g. where punitive damages come in to produce a insensitive to companies to act with diligence or they might need to pay far above the actual damages done. This is also why in some countries for negligence the executives related to the negligent decisions up to the CEO can be hold _personally_ liable. (Through mostly
wrt. cases of negligence where people got physically harmed/died; And mostly as an alternative approach to keeping companies diligent, i.e. instead of punitive damages.). The main problem is that in many cases companies do wriggle their way out of it with a mixture of "make pretend" diligence, lawyer nonsense dragging thing out and early settlements. |
|
| ▲ | RobotToaster 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sure, after 6 years in court you may get a settlement, 95% of which will go towards paying your legal fees. |
| |
| ▲ | thepasch 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 95% of which will go towards paying your legal fees laughs in European | | |
| ▲ | pineaux 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I laughed. No in europe when you win a case like this the judge usually forces the losing party to pay the legal expenses of the winner. Especially if the losing party is a big corporation. | | |
| ▲ | petcat 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's the same in the US | | |
| ▲ | staticman2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | It is not. Legal fees are rarely awarded in the U.S. | | |
| ▲ | petcat an hour ago | parent [-] | | I should have said if you recover it in your damages, which every competent attorney will push for. | | |
| ▲ | staticman2 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Legal fees are not something you are usually legally entitled to. Your attorney can push for whatever illegal thing they can think of, it doesn't mean you will get it. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | chrisjj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Upvoted. Not illegal, but it should make enforcing payment illegal. |
|
| ▲ | gmerc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not illegal enough to worry about. nothing a peace board donation can’t fix. |
|
| ▲ | Matl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How dare you question a corporation's ability to make unlimited money? |
| |
