My pet peeve is changes in 'user agreements' for paid services that add increasing amounts of adverts and tracking, but if you decline, you can't use the service, but the service continues to charge you. For the service they're no longer supplying.

Just the kind of thing that the EU could regulate if it chose. Decline -> Your subscription will be terminated, no further monies will be debut from your account, are you sure?

▲

rkuodys 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm more interested in the cases where you buy your phone, for example, and after purchase you are asked to agree with terms and conditions. Money is paid already. If you do not agree, you cannot use the device. Worse still, if 2 days after thre is mandatory update that forces you to agree to new version. If you don't like them, you should be compensated for it, as it is hidden information from you as a buyer.

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've always viewed those as entirely invalid, at least from the standpoint of the spirit of our various legal systems and cultures. I recognize that any "binding arbitration" bits are enforceable (and an injustice). But the rest of it? Literal make believe. I will do as I please with the hardware that I paid for, its firmware, and any software that it came with. I will actively aid and abet anyone who seeks to reverse engineer same, circumvent associated technical measures, or evade the law while doing so. And all of that is good and virtuous behavior that improves society as far as I'm concerned.

In other words - go ahead and click "I agree" without reading it, then proceed to dump the firmware or whatever else it is that you want to do. You aren't lying or otherwise doing anything wrong. The legal system is just broken.

The fact that such a legal reality has been permitted to reach this point has to be one of the clearest illustrations that western systems of government remain highly flawed despite all that they get right.

▲

bluecheese452 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Yup when courts no longer work at some point we go back to settling disputes the old fashion way. Lawyers and courts were the compromise because the old way can get pretty ugly, but it looks like we are going to have to relearn that lesson.

▲

mitxela 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As Gamer's Nexus said, if you're drunk you can't consent to any contract.

	▲	Telaneo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I like the idea of taking a (couple of) shot(s) of vodka every time you sign up for a service or otherwise click accept on a EULA.

▲

ishouldnotbutk8 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Money is paid already. If you do not agree, you cannot use the device

Well, you can always return the phone. For online purchases you have 14 days to return it just because (you don't need to provide a reason).

▲

pseingatl 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Where in the UCC does it say that? There may be a State regulation or a company policy, but I don't recall anything in the UCC about a "free" 14 day return policy. I can return a used car, no questions asked, after 14 days? Good luck with that.

▲

mopsi 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's an European thing. Anything bought remotely (mail, phone or the internet) can be returned up to 14 days for a full refund.

Some minor exclusions apply, eg hygiene products can't be returned after they've been opened.

▲

rkuodys 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, not really. If you have unpacked the iphone - I'm pretty sure it's not gonna be easy to return even within the 14 day window. You can return unpacked though, which is not the point of what I'm saying. Also for the benefit of the argument, change 2 days to 15 and you end up at the same place- you cannot legally return the device, User agreement has changed in ways you don't accept and you are forced to use device, for which you have paid or accept loss and buy another device. Oh and also, you cannot change OS to the alternative one for which terms might be more acceptable to you. How is this not a subject of investigation- I don't know.

	▲	bmacho 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, yes really. If it is 2 days, and you've bought it online then you can just bring it back. ishouldnotbutk8's message was mostly a joke since your argument would work with 15 days instead of 2. And yes, customers should be protected* against altering the deal. Especially that it is so so common now, with the wide-spread of IT. Companies just push out malicious updates and changes in terms and conditions. * they probably already are, but not many people try to bring remote downgrade cases to courts

▲

embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Remove/changing functionality in a way that the original use case you had for the device, no longer applies, because of a forced software update or user agreement you have to accept, should let people return the hardware regardless of when it was purchased. Bananas that this is still legal for companies to do.

▲

Someone 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> My pet peeve is changes in 'user agreements' for paid services that add increasing amounts of adverts and tracking, but if you decline, you can't use the service, but the service continues to charge you. For the service they're no longer supplying.

> Just the kind of thing that the EU could regulate if it chose

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...:

“Where the contract provides that the digital content or digital service is to be supplied or made accessible to the consumer over a period of time, the trader may modify the digital content or digital service beyond what is necessary to maintain the digital content or digital service in conformity in accordance with Articles 7 and 8, if the following conditions are met:

[…]

2. The consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract if the modification negatively impacts the consumer's access to or use of the digital content or digital service, unless such negative impact is only minor. In that case, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract free of charge within 30 days of the receipt of the information or of the time when the digital content or digital service has been modified by the trader, whichever is later.”

	▲	mitxela 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I can confirm this clause prevented enshittification for EU customers at a former employer. The rest of the world still got it.

▲

masfuerte 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does that need new law? The problem we have in the UK is that Trading Standards has been starved of funding for the last 16 years so they can't do their job. If they had funding I'm pretty sure they have the power to tackle this.

▲

mitxela 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I expect this is already covered by existing regulations but the only enforcement avenue is a lawsuit. They know you won't sue them for $20.

▲

BobbyTables2 an hour ago | parent [-]

I believe that’s why class action lawsuits can serve a purpose…

	▲	mitxela 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In a class action they give $1 to every user they scammed $20 out of, and the lawyers charge $2 per user so you actually get nothing.

▲

impossiblefork 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is why it would be so nice to have an EU that actually made law, instead of just handing over the right to oversee things to the commission.

Imagine if we actually had real regulations, instead of these negotiated things. Then we could just sue and normal courts could handle it.