[crankyoldcrank]

If it's financed it.. isn't really your device until it's paid off. By your logic repo men should be illegal.

[gostsamo]

No, the phone is mine, it is a collateral for the loan. If I'm not paying, the court must acknowledge the fact before the lender has the right to private enforcement.

[kshacker]

Well they are changing the perspective. The phone is theirs until the payment is complete.

Very likely that's how they write the contract too. They may still sell it like "auto pilot" but the paperwork defines the actual contract.

[p49k]

They are "changing the perspective" to a behavior which is predatory and stacked against one party. A company cannot just write anything they want into a contract and expect it to be enforceable; there are rules surrounding what is and isn't acceptable in contracts.

[Aeronwen]

Rent-to-own has been a thing for ages.

While predatory, it's apparently acceptable in contracts.

[gostsamo]

Everything is legal in a sufficiently corrupt system. It doesn't make it moral.

[robocat]

Even if the phone were destroyed, you would still have to pay the debt.

When purchasing a phone on credit, you sign a contract which gives the lender certain rights they wouldn’t otherwise have. No “rights” are broken.

[gostsamo]

Yes, I must pay the sum because I've borrowed the money and what happens to the phone is my responsibility. It has nothing to do with the rights of the lender. Their rights are to repossess the phone if it is not paid because the phone is collateral, not because they own it.

[p49k]

Using repo men (self-repossession) is in fact illegal in much of the civilized world.