Day 10,490 of saying it should be flatly illegal to call a lease a purchase. Companies should never be allowed to use language that implies ownership of a product when what you’re buying is a permanently revokable temporary lease.
“But it’s in the TOS, what they’re doing is perfectly legal” yeah the problem is that it’s legal
Fraud is still fraud, even if they call it something else.
The consumer was led to believe, they could access the media for a long time. The time was abruptly cut short. The consumer did not get what they were led to believe. It’s fraud.
It’s like every other (consumer-)fraud before: they can write in the fine print whatever they want.
I am not saying that this argument will definitely hold up in court. I just want to point out, that it’s not so clear-cut as you are presenting it.
Doubtful. TOS would state that you’re only licensing the media. If the media no longer exists, the license no longer exists.
Day 10,490 of saying it should be flatly illegal to call a lease a purchase. Companies should never be allowed to use language that implies ownership of a product when what you’re buying is a permanently revokable temporary lease.
“But it’s in the TOS, what they’re doing is perfectly legal” yeah the problem is that it’s legal
Fraud is still fraud, even if they call it something else.
The consumer was led to believe, they could access the media for a long time. The time was abruptly cut short. The consumer did not get what they were led to believe. It’s fraud.
It’s like every other (consumer-)fraud before: they can write in the fine print whatever they want.
I am not saying that this argument will definitely hold up in court. I just want to point out, that it’s not so clear-cut as you are presenting it.
TOS is meaningless when the actions are illegal.
I didn’t give a signature on any ToS I’ve ever agreed to. It’s entirely unenforceable.