[EMIRELADERO]

> I don't know if they have a good case to demand specific performance from a different company in order to do that for them.

I mean, this new company pushed the lockout update and imposed the new terms. If we already assume that the users have the right to the advertised functionality, and that the new company has ties to the consumers by inheriting its contractual relationship with them through the previous company's EULA, it would make the most sense for a court to order them to right their wrong.

[kube-system]

Liability for false advertising generally does not transfer in an asset purchase. And the original company didn't really make any false statements. They were just unable to continue to uphold them because they cease to exist. But promises by some other company don't really transfer over unless you have a contract that specifically says that they do. If you're saying that the EULA is that contract, well, that same contract almost certainly gives the service provider the option to change it however they see fit. And I don't know the details here, but usually when something like this happens, any acquiring service provider will usually pop up a click through EULA that's updated for the new service provider, before they push out any further updates, to further strengthen any agreements that might be contained within it before they make any changes. But again, it looks like this company is not in the US so who knows how this may work in some other place.

[baq]

Is false advertising a crime? If so, there are people who are liable no matter which legal entities they used to pull the scam off. Someone authorized it and someone implemented it. There should be fines and entries put in records.