Hacker News Reader

Comment by zettabomb | Hacker News Reader

>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?

This is hardly pedantic.

View on HN

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)

What repercussions are you expecting?

Philips is the perfect example, as I managed to get all my Hue equipment refunded to around 80% of the purchase price 2 years after the purchase.

They refused so I initiated a small claim, which they lost because they breached consumer law.

It’s not rocket science. The problem is that many consumers aren’t aware of their rights, so do nothing about it.

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.

Yeah, I had to return the devices. The compensation awarded was based around the claimed “lifespan” of the lighting. i.e 8 years remaining of the 10 year claim.

>> Why should a car be different in regards to software than your washing machine, tv or iPhone?

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 :)

I don't like it either but it is what it is.

Just because it happens and the companies face no consequences does not mean that it is legal. The problem is that the lawyers aren't getting involved at all because no one bothers to sue, due to the difficulty and (usually) relatively small amount of money involved.

That's the consumer protection you are talking about? Seems like no protection at all. You still haven't proven that it's illegal at all btw.

From https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua...

>You always have the right to a minimum 2-year guarantee if the digital content or service turns out to be faulty, not as advertised or not working as expected. If the supplier cannot fix the content or service within a reasonable time, free of charge and without significant inconvenience to you, you can ask for a reduction in the price or to terminate the contract.

And how does this apply here? The service isn't even killed like Rossmann blurbs in the video. Did you read the offer or the license of it because it looks more and more like you did not. Especially the faulty or does not work as advertised is plain wrong. The works as expected part would be true in your case but just because you had false pretenses to begin with. To take your words "It looks like you have no idea what you are talking about." Sorry but even companies have rights.

https://customer.bmwgroup.com/pm2/pm-document-service/api/v1...

>And how does this apply here?

How does it not? The service was advertised with API access previously, and now that access has been severely limited in the middle of the service period.

>Did you read what's the offer or the license of it because it looks more and more like you did not.

I read it just fine, and I understand it just fine.Clearly you have a different interpretation, one which I strongly disagree with.

>To take your words "It looks like you have no idea what you are talking about."

I never said that, so now you're just making stuff up. No more point in discussing the matter if you cannot stay grounded in reality.

We certainly have different opinions. You still have 100 API calls every 24 hours. Sorry but I would see it as abusive if my API would be hammered with over 300-1000 requests per day for the status of a damn car like some in the GitHub comments were doing.

It probably was someone else in the so sorry for the misunderstanding about the no idea stuff.

tbh I am over it there is no reasoning with people that actively want to abuse systems so they can rice their home assistant dashboard and cry about getting rate limited so they can only update their car status every 15 minutes if they want 24 hours coverage. It's not normal use. hf gl

Reply on news.ycombinator.com