Comment by MereInterest
2 years ago
To my not-a-lawyer understanding, it is fraudulent. Fine print is allowed to clarify an offer, but may not substantially alter the offer as originally made.
I could see an argument made that a reasonable person would know an offer to be limited to supported platforms, and that the fine print clarifies which platforms are supported. To me, though, I’d draw a line between unsupported due to underlying limitations (e.g. can’t serve 4k video on a NES) and unsupported due to seller-side limitations (e.g. won’t serve 4k without remote attestation). I’d see the former as a reasonable clarification of the offer, and the latter as an unreasonable alteration of the offer.
Even if it doesn't technically apply here, the larger point remains that people get handcuffs and corporations get handshakes...
Same deal with deferred prosecutions which is a bullshit designation because the company's legal is basically going to ensure that it becomes a nolle prosequi at that point