£250 digital photo frame now needs subscription to work?

Manxman_in_exile

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  isn't the point about s50 that it's dealing with information that the service provider has provided, and not with information that they haven't provided?  

Also the bit you refer to in paras (11) and (13) of Schedule 2, relating to unfiar terms, they refer to unfair terms imposed by the "trader".  But it isn't the trader - Amazon - who is imposing the potentially unfair term, is it?  Isn't it whoever is providing the service that allows the photo frame to function?  Aren't they separate from Amazon?  (I may be mistaken there - if so apologies!)

FWIW I agree with what I think is your sentiment that the law shouldn't allow this to happen, but I'm wondering if in fact it does allow it to happen.  (I think it's one of the reasons why I've never signed up for any digital or service type subscription except for an internet connection)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  isn't the point about s50 that it's dealing with information that the service provider has provided, and not with information that they haven't provided?  

Also the bit you refer to in paras (11) and (13) of Schedule 2, relating to unfiar terms, they refer to unfair terms imposed by the "trader".  But it isn't the trader - Amazon - who is imposing the potentially unfair term, is it?  Isn't it whoever is providing the service that allows the photo frame to function?  Aren't they separate from Amazon?  (I may be mistaken there - if so apologies!)

FWIW I agree with what I think is your sentiment that the law shouldn't allow this to happen, but I'm wondering if in fact it does allow it to happen.  (I think it's one of the reasons why I've never signed up for any digital or service type subscription except for an internet connection)

The information they haven't provided isn't part of the contract, if that information should have been provided and wasn't then the consumer isn't bound by the contract (I don't know that means in the real world). 

Well both (the seller of the frame and who ever offers the service) would be traders, I assume you mean if one trader is in breach of contract does it give the consumer an entitlement to a remedy against the other. 

When I starting posting on the thread I thought it would but now I have no idea (although that doesn't affect the situation with the terms changing, just what the actual result for the consumer may be were it deemed the change isn't permitted to occur).  

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

MobileSaver said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Terms have to be fair with regards to price amendments

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted

A term which has the object or effect of giving the trader the discretion to decide the price payable under the contract after the consumer has become bound by it, where no price or method of determining the price is agreed when the consumer becomes bound.

A term which has the object or effect of permitting a trader to increase the price of goods, digital content or services without giving the consumer the right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded.

CMA guidance covers this in section 5.53

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

The contract would have to be written carefully to account for this type of change. 

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but what remedy does that leave the OP with, and against whom?

What they want is to view their photos.

If they are unable to use the frame with more than 100 photos without payment the goods no longer match the description and OP would be entitled to reject them. (Of course the description of the goods comes in to play but unless they said in 3 years time you'll have to pay £5.99 to cycle more than 100 photos I don't see what could usually be said on Amazon product page that would cover this).

I think the bolded bit is key, what exactly did the original description say? Unless the description stated that you could cycle more than 100 photos without paying extra then there's little the OP can do.

And even if it did, if the terms you signed up to on the service say 'we reserve the right to change the service later' then that should be sufficient to allow changes regardless of what the Amazon site said. You would of course have had grounds to return the item at that point and say 'i don't agree to those terms' but once agreed to they form part of your contract (provided of course the contract terms are legal)

I sort of agree with you (and it might be what the legal position actually is) but I think that what @_the_lunatic_is_in_my_head is suggesting is that under Schedule 2 of the CRA a court might find that any open ended provision about future pricing or service provision that simply says 'we reserve the right to change the service later' (or anything along those lines) was unfair because it is too imprecise and vague and doesn't give the consumer enough information to make an informed decision about signing up to the service.

Certainly I agree that if I ever bought a digital photoframe (though I really can't see that happening) and while setting it up I discovered that I had to agree to some future vague open-ended terms regarding a subscription or service provision generally, I'd cancel it or reject it on the grounds that it wasn't what I thought I was buying and I didn't agree to the terms.

born_again

It would help to know brand & actual frame used here.
As it is possible, that this is not from a UK company. So any "Ongoing Service" may be out of UK regulations.

Sadly while OP has been back today. Has made no comments,

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said

And even if it did, if the terms you signed up to on the service say 'we reserve the right to change the service later' 

 then that should be sufficient to allow changes 

That in itself would not be sufficient due the requirements of the CRA with regards terms which may be classed as unfair, simply stating "we reserve the right to change the service later" would be an unfair term and thus void. 

The term must provide scope, ensure the contract remains balanced and not of be of significant detriment to the consumer. 

I did add at the end of my post provided the contract terms are legal - but trust me the people who write these service agreements are generally pretty good at getting the legalese right. 

tightauldgit

Manxman_in_exile said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  isn't the point about s50 that it's dealing with information that the service provider has provided, and not with information that they haven't provided?  

Also the bit you refer to in paras (11) and (13) of Schedule 2, relating to unfiar terms, they refer to unfair terms imposed by the "trader".  But it isn't the trader - Amazon - who is imposing the potentially unfair term, is it?  Isn't it whoever is providing the service that allows the photo frame to function?  Aren't they separate from Amazon?  (I may be mistaken there - if so apologies!)

FWIW I agree with what I think is your sentiment that the law shouldn't allow this to happen, but I'm wondering if in fact it does allow it to happen.  (I think it's one of the reasons why I've never signed up for any digital or service type subscription except for an internet connection)

Of course the law needs to allow this to happen though otherwise every company would be tied into providing every online service in perpetuity at whatever agreed price regardless of whether it was reasonable to do so for as long as even 1 user was using it.  

Murphybear

I found this thread very useful as I was thinking about getting a digital photo frame. Like many others I have a big box of old photos that are precious, I have a photo of my father taken in a POW camp during WW2.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said

And even if it did, if the terms you signed up to on the service say 'we reserve the right to change the service later' 

 then that should be sufficient to allow changes 

That in itself would not be sufficient due the requirements of the CRA with regards terms which may be classed as unfair, simply stating "we reserve the right to change the service later" would be an unfair term and thus void. 

The term must provide scope, ensure the contract remains balanced and not of be of significant detriment to the consumer. 

I did add at the end of my post provided the contract terms are legal - but trust me the people who write these service agreements are generally pretty good at getting the legalese right. 

If you are dealing with Apple, Google, Amazon, etc they tend to act in the manner that they can get away with until a point occurs at which it is challenged.

Apple is currently trying to avoid a 39 billion dollar fine from the EU, Google lost an appeal in 2022 over an EU 4 billion dollar fine, Amazon was fine 636 million pounds by the EU in 2021, these companies know how powerful they are and how lacking governments can be at tackling them so the actions, or terms, of massive companies doesn't necessarily make them legal.

If you look at digital photo frames on Amazon today most (I looked at) are random Chinese companies using FBA, although there probably wouldn't be any rights any way, I wouldn't trust this type of company to write fair terms either. 

Obviously none of that helps the OP as we aren't going to change the world here but the conversation has gone from helping the OP (who is hopefully emailing Amazon and Googling how to bypass the charge) to debating the finer points of what should apply under the legislation.  

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said

And even if it did, if the terms you signed up to on the service say 'we reserve the right to change the service later' 

 then that should be sufficient to allow changes 

That in itself would not be sufficient due the requirements of the CRA with regards terms which may be classed as unfair, simply stating "we reserve the right to change the service later" would be an unfair term and thus void. 

The term must provide scope, ensure the contract remains balanced and not of be of significant detriment to the consumer. 

I did add at the end of my post provided the contract terms are legal - but trust me the people who write these service agreements are generally pretty good at getting the legalese right. 

If you are dealing with Apple, Google, Amazon, etc they tend to act in the manner that they can get away with until a point occurs at which it is challenged.

If you are talking about those companies you are also having to add in the complexities of international trade, being on the bleeding edge of change. They drive change and build things which come to a critical mass at which point they are big enough to get the interest of governments.

There were phones that could browse the internet before the iPhone and yet no government then was interested in the fact you didnt have a choice of Chrome or Safari etc. Later when mass grew there was complaints about pre-installed options. Now the focus isnt just on what apps you get but where you can get them. There'll be another one before too long because thats the nature of being the first to make (or popularize) something. 

DE_612183

would it help if @Cocomonkey told us the brand and model of the photo frame?