[loki49152]

We don't need new regulations. This is probably covered by commercial fraud statutes, as they represented the sale of the device as a sale of tangible personal property. There is no condition required to complete that purchase - the offer is of the physical device and the implied ability to use that device for its obvious purpose.

[bryanrasmussen]

we need new regulations - the solution currently would be following what you say and suing the company in I guess small claims court or a class action suit for lots of people mad about the same thing against a single company that they make drag out for years while making money doing the same scam and then the payout will just be the cost of doing business.

The small claims courts solution of course not everybody has the time or resources to do that, so the company wins that way.

We need new regulations that stops it before it gets to the point where you have to go to small claims court or class action to redress the wrong.

[geon]

No, you need a government that enforces it’s laws.

When people are speeding, you don’t need individuals to sue them in small claims court to enforce the speed limit. Having that requirement for consumer goods is bizarre.

[bryanrasmussen]

reply above also pertains here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43750123

[rendaw]

New regulation i.e. more civil law. Which require you to sue in a small claims court to be enforced. How does this change anything, when as GP said there are already civil laws?

[bryanrasmussen]

many regulations are enforced by government agencies that prevent the product from being sold if they do not match the regulations, the civil laws the GP pointed to are contract laws which means that the buyer if they feel ripped off has to sue.

[rendaw]

Oh, good point.

[queenkjuul]

There's isn't necessarily precedent showing the current behavior violates current laws. New laws can be more explicit

[inopinatus]

Omitting a regulator makes enforcement a civil matter and the entire burden is placed on the consumer, which is to say, the legal scales are tipped throughly in favour of rogue manufacturers. Good luck suing DJI; you’ll obtain neither satisfaction nor restitution, and it’ll take years of being strung along by lawyers to realise it.

The even worse outcome of failing to protect the consumer at the point of sale is you’ve tacitly swallowed the tenets of an authoritarian surveillance state.

[ashoeafoot]

We need new regulations and they have to bite so bad the surveillance capitalism companys go bankrupt. If its working , the prices for devices go up because the thirsty road between oasis is priced in. We also would get real innovations as the companies would have to develop real USP again .

[giyokun]

We don't need no regulations.... We don't need no source control... No dark sarcasm in the GitHub comments. Hey Hacker News, leave us code alone.