For me: Cancelling paid subscriptions should be as easy as subscribing. I hate the fact that they actively hide the unsubscribe option or that you sometimes should have to write an e-mail if you want to unsubscribe.

  • Libra00@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    EULAs that say ‘using this <whatever> indicates your acceptance of these terms’. Seems like it ought to be illegal but it’s super common.

    • 60d@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Paying for anything and then being stopped from owning it should be illegal.

      What the fuck am I buying software for if not to own it and have my privacy protected while using it?

      Fuck EULA’s and the companies trying to push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour 😤 just for a couple extra bucks selling our data to the highest bidder.

      • Libra00@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I just assume it’s legal because it’s so common, you’d think if it was illegal someone would’ve challenged it by now and nobody could put it in their EULAs anymore.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You know, I’m not actually sure how binding it is exactly, aside from not totally. It must do something or they wouldn’t bother getting pretend consent.

      • Wiz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        It kinda does make it legal. If you don’t agree to the terms of the product, then you are using it illegally. It sucks, but that’s where the law is. I am typing this on a Linux laptop in Firefox, but those have terms and conditions, too!

        • stoy@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          That depends on the location/jurisdiction, but I do have a hard time believing that any court would uphold a EULA stating that you have to cook dinner for any Microsoft employee that happens to request it, just because to installed Windows 11.

          • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            I believe a fair number of juristictions also invalidate any EULA that’s only viewable after you’ve purchased a product so most software EULAs are worth less than toilet paper anyway.

            • Wiz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              EULA’s are widely honored and established law. However, anyone can push back on anything they put in an agreement.

              To fight Microsoft, you have to fight Microsoft’s lawyers, in Microsoft’s jurisdiction. But you can’t sue them, because you already agreed to arbitration. And you’d have to pay lawyers in what would be a long, drawn out process.

              If Microsoft demands things that are incredibly weird like what you describe above, there definitely would be a chance it could be appealed to a court and eventually see a judge. I think it would be a long and expensive process for both sides getting there. And Microsoft’s argument would be, “The user has the option to stop using it.”

              There are undoubtedly severance clauses in there, so if a court deems a part of a license illegal, then it is stricken, and the rest of the agreement stands.

              So, Microsoft’s lawyers only put things in the agreement that they are 99+% sure of wanting and winning. So they probably won’t request your spleen. They don’t want that. They just want your money, your data, and your eyeballs connected to your brain.