Can a company legally disable a product on the basis it was acquired fraudulently? I recently bought a product on eBay, that turned out to have been directly bought from the manufacturer with stolen credit card info. A couple months after the purchase, the hardware, which "calls home" on startup, started displaying a message that read "product disabled as identified as potentially stolen". I just checked the terms of sale: ANTI-FRAUD ... XXX reserves the right to make contact using details provided, and lock both XXX accounts and hardware. Is this even legal ? This is really the question I'm asking (can't be too specific on stackexchange), but I'd like to provide more context with respect of my own case: The company failed to implement antifraud protection on their website which is often just one optional line of code away (i'm a payment systems programmer). The company accepts payments from Visa, MasterCard, AmericanExpress and Paypal. They all propose anti-fraud filters and offer a zero-liability to the card owner in case of theft. This means the merchant (which turns out to be the company as well in this case) is fully responsible for handling the chargeback the financial institution imposes on the transaction (even if the goods have been sent). In other words (correct me if I'm wrong), the law consider the loss is the value of the goods sent, i.e. that it is not money theft per se, but theft of goods. Disabling the product seems to me like a way to escape their responsibility. Also, for reasons that are too long to explain, I sent back the disabled product to get a refund (was promised so), but now the company, which probably did not want to accept a stolen product to refund/repair/re-enable it but did so in the confusion of its shitty many-people-for-one-request kind of support is just silent and I'm still waiting for my refund. What kind of specific threats can I do to force them to perform this refund ? To me the ownership situation (they now own the product they disabled) shows that the theft has factually been transferred onto me, for an error they committed and that I would not have done (it's my job). What kind of offices/chamber of commerce should I threaten them to reach out to, knowing the company is in Australia and I'm European customer.
The person getting the item by fraud didn't get any ownership. Therefore when you bought it, you didn't get ownership either. It's still the company's property, and they can do with it what they like (within reason, they wouldn't be allowed to make it blow up in your face). If you sent back the item, good on you, because the item is now with its rightful owner. If you don't like it, you can sue the person who sold the item to you.
It is basically fraud, and there are two ways in which it could be illegal: it might be a crime, and you might get sued for doing it (you would not be fined or imprisoned, but you may have to compensate the hotel chain for their loss). Whether or not it is a crime depends on the jurisdiction. In Washington, there are very many laws against fraud such as RCW 9.38 (credit), RCW 9.45 (numerous things where a business defrauds others), RCW 9.60 (forgery) but none of them would apply to lying about a material fact to a business in order to get a discount. Texas likewise has a long section on criminal fraud. It is not clear from the wording whether a customer lying to a business (not involving forgery, vehicles, credit, or financial institutions) is covered. 32.42(b)(10) says A person commits an offense if in the course of business he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence commits one or more of the following deceptive business practices... making a materially false or misleading statement of fact concerning the reason for, existence of, or amount of a price or price reduction The question of interpretation that this raises is whether a person who has said "I'm over 70" so that they can get a discount has made a statement "concerning the reason for a price reduction". The ordinary interpretation of "concerning the reason for" would be that it refers to explaining why or under what conditions a price reduction exists. For the moment, I am skeptical that this definition would include the case at hand, but that will require a search through case law and jury instructions. From the lawsuit angle, you would have knowingly made a false material statement in order to obtain a value, which is illegal, and they could sue you to recover the discount.
Hypothetically speaking, if a program doesn't come with a EULA, does that mean someone in possession of it (who isn't the owner) would be breaking the law if they used it? If the copy on the stick was lawfully made with permission of the copyright holder, then you can lawfully use the software. Someone who lawfully comes into possession of a lawfully made copy of the software (that was not a backup) has the right to use that software in the ordinary way. For example if someone found a USB stick lying on the ground and it had software on it but no EULA, could they use the software? Maybe, but it would be hard for them to know whether they could or not. It might be a backup. It might be an unlawful copy. There was a case where a person found a CD in the trash that was clearly an original. The package had a shrink wrap agreement, but he found the CD without the package. The court held that he had every right to use the software on the CD (since it was a lawfully-made copy and not a backup) and was not bound by the EULA (since he hadn't opened the package). But he was very fortunate in being able to demonstrate these facts.
A TOS is not intrinsically illegal, but an interpretation of a TOS may or may not be supported by a court, that remains to be seen. It probably does not constitute a &quot;deceptive practice&quot; under FTC standards. The TOS is your permission to use the software, and there can be no question that they have the right to impose conditions on customer use of the software. E.g. Amazon cannot freely use software that is only licensed for free educational use. They speak of &quot;ownership&quot; of IP so created and explicitly disclaim any claims about Current Law in Your Jurisdiction. At the crucial point in the agreement, they switch to talking about the license (BY-NC) that they grant when you are not a paid member. The exact details of this ownership are not part of the free tier TOS, but they do seem to add certain protections to &quot;owned&quot; content created under the Pro plan – they are under no legal obligation to make all content universally visible and usable.
A company may retain information to comply with legal obligations, exercise legal claims or rights, or defend legal claims. Maintaining the ability to charge and refund on a credit card is within the scope of their right to retain information. I would not assume that &quot;removing payment method&quot; deletes the data from their database, it means that you can no longer use that method of payment. See this section of Cal. Civ. and this section. A company would need to retain the information somewhere in case there was a reasonable explanation of a charge-back.
The word &quot;dishonestly&quot; is defined in the act (1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— (a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or (b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or (c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps. (2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property. The prosecution thus must establish that defendant knows that he has no legal right, that is, it must be established that he knows that it is not a legal purchase. The simple act of purchasing in these circumstances provides no proof of the alleged dishonesty: the prosecution must add something else. For example, testimony that defendant declared &quot;Crikey! This machine is giving me half-off on everything, those suckers! I wish I had bought more&quot; might be sufficient to establish dishonesty. The &quot;intent&quot; of management in installing these machines is legally irrelevant, indeed management's intent is to reduce operating costs. It is management's responsibility to ascertain that the machines function the way they wish them to. It is not self-evident to the defendant that the machine is malfunctioning, but defendant could have actual knowledge that makes the transaction dishonest.
Yes, it's absolutely legal. It turns out that UK retailers offer replacement out of their own politeness and are not required to do so by law. If they gave you refund then that's all they need to do.
Many products can be used for illegal purposes, so selling something that could be used for illegal purposes won't generally result in liability for the producer. Think of software used for computer system and network security testing; it's both useful for legitimate testing and securing systems, but of course it can be used by hackers to find and exploit security holes. Clorox can be used to clean the bathroom or poison someone. If you look at the Terms of Service for https://donotpay.com/learn/terms-of-service-and-privacy-policy/ , you'll see DoNotPay is Not a Law Firm DoNotPay provides a platform for legal information and self-help. The information provided by DoNotPay along with the content on our website related to legal matters (&quot;Legal Information&quot;) is provided for your private use and does not constitute advice. We do not review any information you provide us for legal accuracy or sufficiency, draw legal conclusions, provide opinions about your selection of forms, or apply the law to the facts of your situation. If you need advice for a specific problem, you should consult with a licensed attorney. As DoNotPay is not a law firm, please note that any communications between you and DoNotPay may not be protected under the attorney-client privilege doctrine. and Your use of the Service is subject to all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Unauthorized use of the Service is prohibited, and violators can be prosecuted under federal and state laws. Virginia law and Federal law will govern the interpretation and enforcement of these Terms. That's for the web service, but it's useful to point out the distinction between a user using DoNotPay for themselves and getting a script to read in court, and the DoNotPay service actually participating in a court appearance representing the user. The reason DoNotPay pulled the plug on the court appearance, as pointed out in the article https://www.businessinsider.com/donotpay-ceo-says-risks-jail-ai-robot-lawyer-used-court-2023-1 is that DoNotPay's AI &quot;robot&quot; lawyer was going to actively argue in court, and the state bar objected, because that's what only lawyers are licensed to do. If the DoNotPay source code was released and someone used it on their own computer to analyze a legal situation and give themselves options and offer decisions, this could probably be seen as little different than someone reading books that analyze the law and strategies and offer options of how to go about representing oneself in a court. The software would be used to make decisions before and after court; the software is not actively arguing and making decisions for the user in court. Of course, in this brand new world of AI, the final assessment of whether or not AI software can be used to give others (or oneself) legal advice - either in court and/or prep for court - will likely have to be finally determined by litigation and courts. The idea of open source or closed source could possibly come into play to determine exactly how the software works, but would not be the sole criteria to determine if the use of the software is legal or not. The software could be simply a &quot;decision tree&quot; (little different than textbooks) that follows a hard-coded if/else script, such as If you get a ticket, go to court; if you plead guilty, this is what happens; if you plead not guilty, these are your options. Or, the software could have true AI aspects, i.e. it develops arguments for being not guilty from your past legal history, and develops and responds to the court's actions with counter arguments, and actually gives opinions to the user on what they should do. If the software is open source, we all see how it works and if it is a decision tree or real AI (and the software can also be modified by users and other developers.) If the software is closed source, we can't see how it works, and we don't know if it is a decision tree or AI, unless it it is opened, possibly through court order during possible litigation to determine if it is giving legal advice. Again, AI is a brand new thing in the legal world.