They should be refunded tbh.
Comment on A VPN Company Canceled All Lifetime Subscriptions, Claiming It Didn’t Know About Them
ModernRisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Is this even legal? I mean people paid for the lifetime version.
CrowAirbrush@lemmy.world 1 day ago
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
No, they should get their lifetime membership. They paid the money for the membership because the membership was worth more than the money to them.
A refund on its own is never good enough because of gains from trade. They broke a contract.
dutchkimble@lemy.lol 20 hours ago
Yeah, pro rata it from the time they bought it to whatever time deathclock.com says for the user and then using time value of money arrive at a fair value to refund
markovs_gun@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There’s probably some fine print in the ToS that says they can do this. It may or may not be legal but that makes it a lengthier court battle to try to prove.
valkyre09@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There are so many ways they can put the squeeze on. Session time limit, throttle fraffic, restrict usage times etc.
Then you can sell a monthly VPN+ subscription and offer revisiting lifetime users 2 years free if they move to the new “better” service.
I’m not saying I agree with any of this, but it’s certainly not a new strategy. They’ve nothing to lose. Those who are pissed off will leave, you already have their money and those who want to stay will pay up.
The VPN company can have their cake and eat it
deltapi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If the new owners purchased the assets, name, and technology and not the company itself, then it’s beholden on the remains of the old company to honour the deal… Good luck with that.
w3dd1e@lemm.ee 1 day ago
How many people start companies, rack up a bunch of debt, then create another company that buys everything except the debt?
shalafi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
NOW you’re getting it.
deltapi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is the exact reason GM still exists.
philpo@feddit.org 1 day ago
Which is a problem of the legal system around it.
Within most(or all) EU countries this would count as a continuation of business and all previous liabilities (e.g. employees contracts, customers contracts, etc.) would need to be honored.
Why it is done this way? To prevent people from doing exact that.
orcrist@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Except what you’re describing doesn’t make sense. If the new owners purchased all of those things, then in reality they purchased the company. Courts are very likely to agree on this. It looks like a company-wide sale, therefore it probably is, even if someone tries to add a line saying “we aren’t liable”.
But imagine someone could “sell everything other than the liability”. In such a case, the seller would be putting themselves on the hook to pay outstanding debts (i.e., the seller would be liable). And we know they have money – they just sold the thing. So then the seller would pay… But they know that in advance, so they would not agree to such a sale in the first place, unless they were planning to steal that money through creative accounting of some kind… But both parties know all of that that in advance, so they would both be acting fraudulently.
deltapi@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
It happens regularly. The most notable ‘tidy’ example I can think of would be when the Governments of US and Canada ‘bailed out’ General Motors. They did exactly what I’m talking about; they created a new legal entity called NGMCO Inc. which purchased almost all the Assets of the ‘old’ GM, including trademarks, names, websites, etc.
The key here is that the selling company was bankrupt. In such a case, the creditors want to try to get money back out of their ‘investment’ so the asset sale is done to cover debts. Selling liabilities generally doesn’t raise money for those creditors, so often after the money is all sucked out, whatever remaining liabilities exist are functionally void. Legally they remain until the corporation is dissolved, but with no ability to act on the liabilities (ie., no money to pay) this doesn’t functionally matter.
The ‘old’ GM changed it’s name to ‘Motors Liquidation Company’ and retained the liabilities. Shareholders of the ‘old’ GM were left holding the bag, so to speak. Technically, it was further split into trusts to ‘handle’ liabilities, but realistically ‘old’ GM sputtered out holding liabilities while ‘new’ GM carried on with minimal penalty.
You can have less ‘tidy’ cases as well, where substantial parts of a company are sold in an asset sale/purchase but leave behind a working company. In those cases the liabilities are not functionally abandoned. Disney purchasing FOX, for example.
Further reading:
www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asset-sales.asp
reuters.com/…/oldgm-exit-idUSN3121109620110331/?f…
en.wikipedia.org/…/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor…
…wikipedia.org/…/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_…