[Steve0]

Yes, the device the user paid 99 dollars for and is now useless. So for the user to get his money back he has to send back the device.

[erikb]

And? That's how it works.

[kungtotte]

He doesn't like the customer's tone of voice so he can decide to turn the customer's device into a $99 paperweight? That's not at all how it works.

You're being strangely defensive over this whole thread and I'm going to echo another commenter in asking, are you affiliated with Garadget in any way?

[erikb]

That's how cloud services work. If you buy a cloud service, then F up with the cloud provider, your cloud device is worthless.

And there's really no problem with it, since you can get your money back. You don't lose any money.

> are you affiliated with Garadget in any way?

Let's say it's true. Would I say it, after going so far of somehow getting a 2843 days old HN account for it? Or let's say I'm not. Why would I even bother to answer to anyone but a moderator (who would probably send me an email in that case)? So, what's your point? Trying to discredit a discussion partner because you run out of arguments?

[hluska]

That's how it works if you're a shitty, unethical company that has no business being involved in the security space.

[stale2002]

No. That's probably illegal.

Don't break the law.

It doesn't matter what fine print the customer signed, if the contract is illegal.

Consumer protection laws protect us from this BS.

[erikb]

I don't think that point is as clear as you imagine. Really bricking a device may be illegal (and is probably already contested enough in front of a judge that a lawyer can tell you the details). But this device probably works 100% the same, just the server responds with "Not authorized". So in fact the device is still working perfectly fine.