Comment on FTC urged to make smart devices say how long they will be supported

Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  So if you spent $130k on a Tesla that came with Disney+ and then the CEO has a spat with Disney and removes it 5 years later, you should be able to return it for a full refund?

  Just trying to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

  source

  • frank@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    For the first example, absolutely. If some execs have a meltdown, it could change future services but anyone who was promised Disney+ on their Tesla with no limit on it should get a fair refund. I understand that there’s a slippery slope argument here, and no– the value of Disney+ in a car isn’t 100% the value of it. But it’s BS that a manchild having an Internet meltdown loses people a service they had and “paid for”

    source

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Just trying to figure out exactly what “changing the service” means.

      source

      • frank@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I don’t know that non-lawyers need to figure out exactly what it means, but in an ideal world: if you pay for something that includes a continuation of services and the services stop continuing, you should be compensated fairly. I am not smart enough to word that in a way that can’t be worked around, “gotcha’d”, etc. but I’m guessing the spirit of the rules is fairly common ground for anyone who isn’t trying to rug-pull a service out from under those they sell it to.

        source
  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Yes

    source
  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Might sound stupid, but perhaps then they shouldn’t be offering services like Disney Plus and instead simply offer a car that lets you download any streaming app you have your own subscription for.

    source

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      That’s a fair point.

      source