[DevX101]

Now would be a good time to have a functional FTC commissioner. Doing a bait and switch like on a product that was sold with a set of features should be illegal. If I buy a car and the sales guy stops by my house the next day to take back the wheels, it would rightfully be seen as ridiculous.

[evrimoztamur]

America's lack of customer protection will hurt continue hurting its people. Ladies and gentlemen, please do something about it.

[tanepiper]

Laughs in European Consumer Protection

How's that "break regulation to innovate" working out for US?

[labster]

I’m afraid the only thing we can do at this point is gun for an economic depression, ride out three years of that just like with Hoover (1929–33), and upgrade to New Deal 2.0 beta. There’s no amount of protests that can convince the median Trump voter that anything is wrong in America unless it affects him personally. And no amount of protest will convince Trump that he has made a single mistake in his entire life.

[notum]

I feel the issue is deeper than that. We no longer buy products, we rent them, it's hard for consumer protection laws to catch up with that (even European).

[kerkeslager]

I 100% agree but unfortunately this is pretty far down the list of our biggest problems at the moment.

[amelius]

I'd be surprised if FTC had any teeth left after DOGE was done with them.

[Cthulhu_]

And yet this is what Tesla did. They sold a car and added a surcharge for full self-driving as a future option, or they added it as an upgrade option. But they never delivered. That's like buying a car with the promise of wheels but the wheels are never delivered (except you actually need the wheels etc).

I'm amazed there haven't been major class-action lawsuits raised against Tesla yet, both from consumers for not delivering what is promised (full self-driving), and from shareholders for not delivering what was announced years ago (semi, new roadster). And from shareholders for artificially inflating the stock value of Tesla to use as leverage to buy Tesla and / or fund SpaceX.

[rusk]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Tesla floating on a cushion of private Saudi wealth?

[szundi]

That’s different, delivering later (for example probably never) is not the same.

This is about removing a privacy feature.

[jonathanstrange]

IANAL but I thought bait and switch is illegal? It definitely is in the EU. Is it not in the US?

[amelius]

It is illegal, but suing is too costly.

[atoav]

Yeah but the ridiculously anti-consumer US has opted to elect politicians with so much billionaire miney, they'd rather get their moneys worth.

Who needs anti-coruption laws with a society like that? And who expects not to get fucked by coorporations when they have lost every incentive not to?

And the free market isn't the incentive you think it is when your're the monipolists that can crush or buy out the competition.

[imoreno]

Don't these usually come with ToS or something that has you agreeing that they can change the service any time?

[Taek]

ToS have limits, people in a practical sense aren't really able to read and understand the ToS of every product they buy, which means a ToS can only go so far in the ways it allows companies to be predatory against consumers.

[muzani]

I always wonder how valid these actually are. There's probably a reasonable range.

Like a car park can say they're not liable for your car's safety, it doesn't mean they can steal your car. A roller coaster can say they're not liable for injuries but if they didn't inform you it's dangerous for pregnant people or if they violate some safety law, they're probably liable.

The bit about changing terms of service probably gives them some leeway to deal with law changes and stuff. If they're purposely being misleading to play bait and switch, that sounds like it's breaking a law somewhere.

[mihaaly]

Perhaps there should be license allowing the procurement and operation of consumer devices having overly complex (including language) ToC, making sure that the user knows what it takes to have and to operate a device like that. With categories for the various device categories, just like for vechicles (although cars and trafic rules are much simpler than ToCs, still that is a simple analogy to build up the complexity of ToCs).

[yaur]

When you buy a car there is a lot of required paperwork that they don't really give you time to read, so maybe.

[mjmas]

That would be illegal under the unfair contracts law here in Australia.

[z3t4]

It was not yours to begin with. Think of it as a service. Just give it back and go to a competitor. Ohh wait, there are no competitors! Monopolies suck! Especially if they are world-wide.

[firtoz]

There are competitors, even open source ones

[davedx]

I mean this in a non snarky serious way: these things are a totally unnecessary luxury electronics item. Don’t buy one at all is also an option.

[timeon]

> Ohh wait, there are no competitors!

Sometimes winning move is not to play. If there are no competitors to this, just do not use anything.

[Waterluvian]

“Reputation” as a free market remedy is such a poor solution, though, as it lags behind the events that change it.

A badly tuned PID loop is better than nothing, I guess.

[benrutter]

To continue the metaphor, shouldn't someone close down or regulate "wheel stealing jimmies wheel theft funded auto retailer" so that they don't keep stealing people's wheels?

[therealpygon]

Some people will say just about anything to blame the consumer. You know, like “it’s your own fault for buying a thing from a company.”

[observationist]

They aren't wheel stealing jimmies, but they're definitely data railing bit bangers itching for their next fix. I think choosing to do business with Amazon comes with the same sort of reasonable assumptions. Lie down with dogs, and all that.

Y'all got some more of that data...?

[imoreno]

It doesn't sound like a good idea to blame the victim more if the offender is a repeat offender. If anything repeat offenders should be treated harsher.

[simion314]

>Yes but reputation is a factor. If you bought that car from wheel stealing jimmies wheel theft funded auto retailer you might need to shoulder some of the blame.

You think the same for food and medicine? remove the "evil" regulations and let the reputation be a factor and every individual should do their research ?

[TZubiri]

Chill man. Just send back the product and ask for a refund.

[disattention]

This is a kind of stoic virtue signal that may make people feel more mature for agreeing, but fails to fix issues while mocking people who try to make a difference. It's ok for people to feel things, and it's ok for people to want laws addressing anti-consumer behavior.

[hightrix]

I tried, Amazon will not refund over this issue.

[_heimdall]

The car is no longer usable without the wheels, I believe the argument for Alexa would be that the core functionality is still usable without the privacy setting.

I don't see why we would need the FTC to fix this. If someone bought Alexa from Amazon and honestly expected it to be privacy focused, they just made a mistake and can learn from it. Problems don't always have to be solved by running to the biggest authority that can be found and demanding they solve it for you.

[A_D_E_P_T]

"Do not send voice recordings" back to Amazon HQ =/= "privacy focused." It's arguably a necessary feature for minimal privacy in one's home, and I expect that a lot of people bought those devices with that in mind.

If the FTC doesn't fix this kind of spontaneous downgrade, I'm not sure what they're for at all.

If somebody falls for a criminal's fraud, I suppose "they just made a mistake and can learn from it"? No need for anybody else, or any authority, to do anything?