Is it illegal for a company to remove features from a product after purchase?

[vizion27]

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right section, or whether this site deals with this particular issue, but any help would be appreciated.

Today, Sony electronics released a software update (3.21) for the Playstation 3 which removes a feature that allowed you to install Linux on the machine. The feature was said to be a security risk because some well-known hackers have published exploits on how to circumvent Linux to do other things. Nothing major so far, but there's potential for piracy there.

Now, some have debated whether this was illegal for them to do since the manual "advertises" that you can install another OS. So I'd like to know what people here think with regards to legality.

This is mentioned in their Terms of Service:

3. SERVICES AND UPDATES

From time to time, SCE may provide updates, upgrades or services to your PS3 system to ensure it is functioning properly in accordance with SCE guidelines or provide you with new offerings.

Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system.

Some services may change your current settings, cause a loss of data or content, or cause some loss of functionality.

SCE, at its sole discretion, may modify the terms of this Agreement at any time, including any terms in the PS3 system documentation or manual, or at PLAYSTATION3 License.

Is that enough to protect them against a class action lawsuit?

 

[Zigner]

US Law Only!

 

[xylene]

yep.

As is -

SCE, at its sole discretion, may modify the terms of this Agreement at any time, including any terms in the PS3 system documentation or manual,

 

[vizion27]

US Law Only!

I don't follow you. I'm referring to US laws. The link in the OP is from their Japanese site, but it's the same terms worldwide. Any more help would be appreciated.

 

[swalsh411]

xylene answered your question. You could not successfully sue Sony for nerfing Linux compatibility.

 

[Zigner]

I don't follow you. I'm referring to US laws. The link in the OP is from their Japanese site, but it's the same terms worldwide. Any more help would be appreciated.

Yes, but you ignore the question...

Anyway, tough luck

 

[xylene]

The clause

SCE, at its sole discretion, may modify the terms of this Agreement at any time, including any terms in the PS3 system documentation or manual

well - they have modified the agreement so that Linux can't be installed.

 

[vizion27]

xylene answered your question. You could not successfully sue Sony for nerfing Linux compatibility.

Thank you. I appreciate the answer by xylene, I was just looking for more feedback.

I don't plan on suing or anything. In fact I don't think it's illegal. But I've been debating this issue with others who do believef it qualifies as "false advertising" and breaks consumer protection laws.

Thanks for your inpu folks

 

[xylene]

Thank you. I appreciate the answer by xylene, I was just looking for more feedback.

I don't plan on suing or anything. In fact I don't think it's illegal. But I've been debating this issue with others who do believef it qualifies as "false advertising" and breaks consumer protection laws.

Thanks for your inpu folks

The TOU openly advises users that the terms can be changed.

I am not aware of any binding material promises or even any open claims advertied to offer Linux compatibility on the PS3

Indeed, I as a PS3 user was unaware of any ability to install linux. THis is a relatively obscure feature taken advantage of by a small community of power users.

So no false advertisng... which is virtually imposible to prove anyway.


I would also ask what consumer protection laws are being violated.

Is the device less safe as a result of this change?

 

[vizion27]

This is what someone wrote with regards to consumer protection laws at a different forum:

I am, however, a Law Student and an ardent suporter of Consumer Rights (especially in the tech industry), FOSS, net neutrality and that ilk. As such, I have a very strong personal interest in the matter.

That being said, after examining the relevant web content on Sony's website, as well as the FTC's website, I can say with a degree of certainty that the proposed Firmware update WOULD, in fact, violate US Consumer Protection Laws.

My sources:

Guides against Bait advertising

PS3 manual

The case is quite simple.

The FTC defines "advertisement" as "any form of public notice however disseminated or utilized." In this case, the second Sony owned and maintained website, detailing how to install an alternate OS on a PS3. In a legal sense, Other OS is an advertisement feature of the applicable models of the Sony PS3.

As such, Sony is legally obligated to honor that advertisement. Should they disable Other OS with the oncoming Firmware update, they would be committing an ex post facto "Bait and Switch", according to US Consumer Protection Laws.

This being said, I highly encourage all PS3 users who feel jilted by this change to stick to your guns. Post in the forums, call their customer service hotline and, should the need arise, find a Class Action suit to join. Despite what the detractors may say, the law IS, in fact, on your side.

 

[You Are Guilty]

That's why you should never take legal advice from a law student.

 

[xylene]

This is what someone wrote with regards to consumer protection laws at a different forum:

That person threw around a lot of legal jargon, but at the end of the day that person does not cite a violation of law.

Indeed if the other OS withdrawal resolved a security flaw, SONY could (and will among many other things) argue that it improved the user experience.

It is only bait and switch if the consumer pays more or is given less.

 

[scientistE5]

huh?

I am not aware of any binding material promises or even any open claims advertied to offer Linux compatibility on the PS3

Sony made many such claims. Phil Harrision, President of Sony Computer Entertainment WorldWide, during a public interview about the PS3 stated:

One of the most powerful things about the PS3 is the "Install Other OS" option. It won't be Vista. It'll be Linux.

If that's not an open claim about the "Install Other OS" option, I don't know what is. Sony would go on to put out more information about Linux and the "Other OS" option from 2006-2009.

So no false advertisng... which is virtually imposible to prove anyway.

I don't understand this statement. I find one advertisement, or one video of Sony making those claims, then I show them removing that feature.... what else would be required for proof?

I would also ask what consumer protection laws are being violated.

Ok, here's what I think is being violated.

Sec. 238.4 Switch after sale.

No practice should be pursued by an advertiser, in the event of sale of the advertised product, of "unselling" with the intent and purpose of selling other merchandise in its stead. Among acts or practices which will be considered in determining if the initial sale was in good faith, and not a stratagem to sell other merchandise, are:

(a) Accepting a deposit for the advertised product, then switching the purchaser to a higher-priced product,

(b) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time or to make a refund,

(c) Disparagement by acts or words of the advertised product, or the disparagement of the guarantee, credit terms, availability of service, repairs, or in any other respect, in connection with it,

(d) The delivery of the advertised product which is defective, unusable or impractical

I think it violates that.

They disabled an advertised feature and put something else in its stead. That something else would be "nothing".

xylene do you have a law degree?

 

[TheGeekess]

Read the EULA for the OS. That's the contract that you agree to when you boot the silly thing.

 

[scientistE5]

Read the EULA for the OS. That's the contract that you agree to when you boot the silly thing.

EULA's are contracts of adhesion and as such, often don't hold much weight in court.

NOR do they override any State/Federal laws.

Anyone claiming that Sony didn't violate any Federal/State/Local trade laws, had better hold a law degree and be intimately familiar with the trade laws of all 50 States.

Ask this question to a legit lawyer, you will generally get one of two answers: "yes" or "not that I'm aware of".

"not that I'm aware of" comes about because most lawyers don't know every last trade law in every state, so they often can't give a definite "no".