[oldcynic]

> but then two years later the manufacturer pushes and update that adds 24/7 tracking and mandatory banner ads. What do you suggest doing in that case? Return your car to the dealer for a refund?

I expect, well more hope, someone to try exactly that. Then for some interesting case law to develop.

I sure hope everyone isn't just going to roll over and accept this shit.

[tachyoff]

Here’s what will happen:

Judge: “Well, you signed this contract two years ago, which specifically states that you consent to OTA updates of any kind.”

Done. The judicial system is not always the place to fight these things, especially when you have existing case law working against you. It’s important to remember that we have a legislature whose job is to, ostensibly, make laws. Congress could quite easily make a law that no car company can advertise at you in your vehicle, but I’m having a hard time fathoming such sensible legislation with this current administration.

But my larger point stands: the courts will be of no use here, and rightfully so, because we already have a branch of government that is supposed to deal with this: the legislature. Not “roll[ing] over and accept[ing] this shit” will involve voting, unfortunately.

[oldcynic]

Hmm, perhaps it's a UK/EU difference to the US. Judges here are perfectly happy to strike clauses in contracts or terms they think unreasonable or at variance to law or custom. Agreed to or not.

Whether it comes down to UK/EU sale of Goods Act, or contract law I could not say.

[Slansitartop]

Is it as clear cut as that? Such a thing would probably be some kind of EULA, and I think those have more limits on the kinds of terms they can include.