This comparison is invalid. Gmail is a separate product from the phone, and importantly, not advertised as being included with the phone. BMW owners are paying separately for the API access, which has now been limited after the sale.
You accept a license agreement and terms and conditions when you buy the car which lets them pretty much do anything they want with the software. Do you think these company are run by a bunch of 12 year olds and not their legal departments. How can you be so pedantic but at the same time so naive?
>You accept a license agreement when you buy the car which lets them pretty much do anything they want with the software.
This cannot override your rights as a consumer. If I sell you a service, I'm required to provide you that service as agreed upon at time of purchase for the duration of the contract.
>How can you be so pedantic but at the same time so naive?
Well it kind of can. see all the other companies who have done exactly this with no repercussion: Mazda, Chevrolet, Chamberlain, etc. See companies like Eufy and Philips that sell products advertised working within a local intranet only and then change their mind after the fact (in Philips case over a decade after, when some users had invested hundreds or even thousands into the hue ecosystem).
There appears to be no regulation protecting consumers from this abusive behavior. If it does exist it is not enforced whatsoever.
In no cases can any contract overrule the law. However, you are correct that the law is not being enforced, because it is exceedingly difficult for an individual person to tackle a massive company like BMW. The point of Rossmann's video, if I understand it correctly, is that we shouldn't just keep letting them get away with it, and actually defend our rights.
Indeed. It’s the price of the car itself that makes it more difficult to challenge - which is why people often go for lower monetary compensation through the small claims track (which has a max claim value variable depending on country)
More significant ones, obviously, that discourage them from engaging in such anticonsumer behavior. One should not have to engage in individual legal action to to get what they paid for
That said I applaud you for taking them to charge. Good for you. I assume you had to return the devices? I wonder how this would work for people who invested 5, 7, 10+ years ago. I would hope the same.
It shouldn't be different. It's also illegal to not fulfill the contract as agreed upon in those cases, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. And the product in question is not the car, the API access is provided as a separate subscription service.
If it's a seperate t&c and license agreement for the api it's even easier for them to disable services. You are making these statement with so much confidence but the real world works the opposite. Apple throttles iPhones, Google kills services pair of free. Samsung pushes ads on their smarttvos. I think their lawyers are right and you misunderstand the law you are citing otherwise the world would be a better place :)
> How can you be so pedantic but at the same time so naive?
Wow, insulting others when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
In the EU a license agreement cant override your consumer rights. If the car was marketed as having a cardata feature and now that feature is restricted, under EU law you are entitled for it to be restored or fairly compensated - which could mean returning the car if it was a marketed feature and a major factor in the purchasing decision - although it’s more likely to be a monetary compensation for minor features. There’s even specific guidance for “digital elements” of products to cover things exactly like this.
I haven’t returned a car, but I have either returned or requested compensation for other consumer items for similar reasons - and was compensated fairly given their use.
Go and sue them we will wait with anticipation for the ruling. Last sentence from my first comment stands and could be applied to you as well. Just had a look at their Terms and Conditions and they are pretty clear.
>> Why should a car be different in regards to software than your washing machine, tv or iPhone?
Again, terms and conditions can't override consumer rights.
The car shouldn't be different from the washing machine, the TV, and the iPhone. I should get a refund if functionality is removed from any of them after purchase.
It's done everyday by thousands of companies and I've never seen a ruling in the EU or otherwise. Apple still throttles iPhones, Google still kills services paid or free. Samsung pushes ads into their smartTVs... Everyone in this thread makes these comments with full confidence but the real world reflects the opposite.
> Go and sue them we will wait with anticipation for the ruling
We don't need to 'sue' as we aren't Americans.
Strong consumer rights laws in the UK and EU mean that if goods are not as described and/or become disabled or are not of reasonable quality, it is straight forward to either reject the goods (and get a full refund) or claim appropriate compensation for your losses.
So why does it happen every day? With prominent examples of Apple, Google and others that get chastised in the media but not in court? You bring the same argument which is not the lived reality of consumers in the EU.
But you can probably cancel plans, send back binary to noreply@gmail.com, and get refund for services not yet rendered, that's same as returning the car with deduction for miles driven