For the first example, absolutely. If some execs have a meltdown, it could change future services but anyone who was promised Disney+ on their Tesla with no limit on it should get a fair refund. I understand that there’s a slippery slope argument here, and no– the value of Disney+ in a car isn’t 100% the value of it. But it’s BS that a manchild having an Internet meltdown loses people a service they had and “paid for”
I don’t know that non-lawyers need to figure out exactly what it means, but in an ideal world: if you pay for something that includes a continuation of services and the services stop continuing, you should be compensated fairly. I am not smart enough to word that in a way that can’t be worked around, “gotcha’d”, etc. but I’m guessing the spirit of the rules is fairly common ground for anyone who isn’t trying to rug-pull a service out from under those they sell it to.
For the first example, absolutely. If some execs have a meltdown, it could change future services but anyone who was promised Disney+ on their Tesla with no limit on it should get a fair refund. I understand that there’s a slippery slope argument here, and no– the value of Disney+ in a car isn’t 100% the value of it. But it’s BS that a manchild having an Internet meltdown loses people a service they had and “paid for”
Just trying to figure out exactly what “changing the service” means.
I don’t know that non-lawyers need to figure out exactly what it means, but in an ideal world: if you pay for something that includes a continuation of services and the services stop continuing, you should be compensated fairly. I am not smart enough to word that in a way that can’t be worked around, “gotcha’d”, etc. but I’m guessing the spirit of the rules is fairly common ground for anyone who isn’t trying to rug-pull a service out from under those they sell it to.