£250 digital photo frame now needs subscription to work?

sheramber

I purchased a £250 digital photo frame on Amazon in August 2020.

Was it sold by Amazon , fulfilled by Amazon or  bought from a trader on Amzon?

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

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.  

I don't believe it necessarily follows that because I think the law should deem certain types of terms and conditions to be unfair and therefore unenforceable that I also think the law should then compell service providers to act unreasonably or to their commercial detriment.

I see no reason why a service provider's T&Cs shouldn't contain a provision that, for example, the service will only be provided so long as the user base exceeds a certain number or level, or so long as provision of the service remains commercially viable.  I wouldn't describe terms like that as being either unfair or unreasonable and I don't think the law would either.  I also don't think a court would - or indeed should - force a company to keep providing a service at any price so long as just 1 user was using it.

Similarly I'd be quite happy with a contract term along the lines of "prices will be subject to review on renewal and any increase will not exceed the increase in CPR plus n%".  (Note that that is just one example of a price term I think would be fair). A term like that is reasonably clear and gives the consumer sufficient information to make an informed choice.  I don't think a court would say it was unfair.  

In this thread we have a situation where the OP has bought from Amazon a piece of electronic kit that boasts a particular function.  The OP bought the piece of kit under the impression - apparently - that they were buying it, and its function, outright.  The OP is now miffed that they are going to be charged a subscription fee in future to enjoy the kit's particular function, and the OP seems to be saying that they were never warned by Amazon when buying the piece of kit that they might end up paying an ongoing subscription fee.

If what I understand the OP to be saying is what has actually happened, then I think that Amazon are at fault here if they didn't give notice that the functioning of the bit of kit might be subject in future to a subscription charge.

In terms of the software that enables the functioning of the frame, the OP hasn't told us what T&Cs he was made aware of when he bought it or first activated it, but if he wasn't given a clear indication that the service might be subject to a subscription charge in future, then I think he has a legitimate complaint if they are now trying to impose such a charge on him post hoc.

If the OP had been notified at the time that the provider reserved the right in future to charge a subscription (or to make other changes to the service that might significantly alter its nature) then whether or not the law would consider such terms unfair would depend on how detailed or vague they were, how transparent and "reasonable", and whether they seemed to be designed to allow the provider to make arbitrary changes.  I think the law would also look at the relative bargaining power between the consumer and the provider in assessing "unfairness".

But unless the OP comes back with more detail about how Amazon represented the item to them and exactly what they were told about use of the software (and by whom), nobody really knows if they have a legitimate compliant or not.  How often have we only heard part of a story and the OP never comes back?

Ectophile

Murphybear said:

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 standard sort of digital photo frame will have an SD card slot and/or a USB slot.  Stick as many photos as you like onto a memory card, and plug it in.  No internet connection or subscription service required.

DullGreyGuy

Manxman_in_exile said:

tightauldgit said:

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.  

I don't believe it necessarily follows that because I think the law should deem certain types of terms and conditions to be unfair and therefore unenforceable that I also think the law should then compell service providers to act unreasonably or to their commercial detriment.

The challenge is trying to think of all the different things that can happen in X years... there are a raft of devices that have embedded 3g connection which will all start failing as 3G is being turned off, Vodafone started last year. A few years ago that wasn't in anyone's mind.

Unfortunately some of it is also bad planning... sell a device for £X and give a free service, only works if you can continue increasing your sales year on year forever more. Some will find that plan fails much quicker than they hoped. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone have or talk about having a digital photo frame and the last one that did was using a tablet.

Hence service providers often have broad terms not because they want to do bad to the consumer but that they dont want to drive themselves into bankruptcy through ill thought out free services or being able to deal with change in regulations etc

TELLIT01

Murphybear said:

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 digital photo frame I have takes SD cards and has a USB port so I am free to use whatever photo's I want.  Although it has been discontinued, there are others on the market with the same connectivity plus Bluetooth.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

The challenge is trying to think of all the different things that can happen in X years... there are a raft of devices that have embedded 3g connection which will all start failing as 3G is being turned off, Vodafone started last year. A few years ago that wasn't in anyone's mind.

Unfortunately some of it is also bad planning... sell a device for £X and give a free service, only works if you can continue increasing your sales year on year forever more. Some will find that plan fails much quicker than they hoped. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone have or talk about having a digital photo frame and the last one that did was using a tablet.

Hence service providers often have broad terms not because they want to do bad to the consumer but that they dont want to drive themselves into bankruptcy through ill thought out free services or being able to deal with change in regulations etc

Those reasons are all well and good but if the legislation protects the consumer from them well it protects the consumer from them. 

I also understand your previous point about issues happening on mass, ideally enforcement would occur at all times but sadly there is too much to deal with so governments tend to focus on the bigger issues that affect a lot of people, but that doesn't mean what occurred before the government decided to take action was lawful, just that they got away with it until a certain point in time  

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The challenge is trying to think of all the different things that can happen in X years... there are a raft of devices that have embedded 3g connection which will all start failing as 3G is being turned off, Vodafone started last year. A few years ago that wasn't in anyone's mind.

Unfortunately some of it is also bad planning... sell a device for £X and give a free service, only works if you can continue increasing your sales year on year forever more. Some will find that plan fails much quicker than they hoped. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone have or talk about having a digital photo frame and the last one that did was using a tablet.

Hence service providers often have broad terms not because they want to do bad to the consumer but that they dont want to drive themselves into bankruptcy through ill thought out free services or being able to deal with change in regulations etc

Those reasons are all well and good but if the legislation protects the consumer from them well it protects the consumer from them. 

And its one of the reasons why products in the UK are more than they are in the US 

Naturally consumer protection is a double edged sword... for example with the new rules on car and home insurance not being able to be more expensive to renew than new customers the FCA fully admitted the consequences for those that shop around annually are likely to be higher premiums.

Same as banning fees for credit cards... rather than those paying by CC paying a 0.5% fee everyone pays a 0.25% uplift. (assuming a 50/50 distribution). 

However legislation can have carves out as per the quotes earlier which said "unless reasonably justified" (or words to that effect, can't be bothered to scroll back) which leaves the door open for broad terms and them being enforceable as long as they are used appropriately. The downside for consumers is the terms are wooly making it hard to know what may be considered reasonable.

Appliance_engineer

This kind of subscription cash grab is becoming common. We had a little vector robot that used to do tricks and respond to voice commands, etc for the kids.  

The manufacturer was taken over, and the new owners switched off the servers unless you paid a subscription.

I wasn't willing to be coerced into having to pay to get ordinary usage out of the thing, so it basically remains a useless paperweight.