Comment by mystraline
5 hours ago
Indeed.
My ownership is proved by my receipt from the store I bought it from.
This vandalization at scale is a CFAA violation. I'd also argue it is a fraudulent sale since not all rights were transferred at sale, and misrepresented a sale instead of an indefinite rental.
And its likely a RICO act, since the C levels and BOD likely knew and/or ordered it.
And damn near everything's wire fraud.
But if anybody does manage to take them to court and win, what would we see? A $10 voucher for the next Oneplus phone? Like we'd buy another.
As far as legal arguments go, I imagine their first counter would be that you agreed to the update, so it's on you.
A forced update or continual loop of "yes" or "later" is not consent. The fact that there is no "No" option shows that.
Fabricated or fake consent, or worse, forced automated updates, indicates that the company is the owner and exerting ownership-level control. Thus the sale was fraudulently conducted as a sale but is really an indefinite rental.
It Is not an indefinite rental. A sale can't be "misrepresented". It is a blatant CFAA violation. They are accessing your computer, modifying its configuration, and exfiltrating your private data without your authorization.
If I buy a used vehicle for example, I have exactly zero relationship with the manufacturer. I never agree to anything at all with them. I turn the car on and it goes. They do not have any authorization to touch anything.
We shouldn't confuse what's happening here. The engineers working on these systems that access people's computers without authorization should absolutely be in prison right alongside the executives that allowed or pushed for it. They know exactly what they're doing.
1 reply →
Their defense would probably be like: "you clicked Yes on the EULA form."