Comment by Hydraulix989 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hydraulix989 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can't decide whether this is legal or not.

I am closer to siding _with_ Garadget in that as a private business, they don't HAVE to provide a service to someone (and it looks pretty obvious that there was no particular discrimination or the like); in fact, they have the right to refuse service.

That said, the person also DID purchase a physical item (in fact, Garadget probably should have refunded them first, just basing this off my own personal ethical point-of-view).

That said, if a negative Amazon review IS the real reason (it looks like there was a bit more to it), then this COULD also backfire as bad publicity. Do other people want to give their business to someone who in the past has refused service to someone solely on the basis of a bad review?

I've left negative Yelp reviews and tweets before in earnest to those that I think deserve them, and while I genuinely won't be giving anyone repeat business after I've been prompted to review them, I would be even more upset if I _was_ refused service on the basis of my reviews.

As you can see, businesses seem to really try to find out who has personally left negative reviews, so I'm sure they all know who I am. That said, I personally don't swear in any of my negative reviews, I try to keep them constructive.

> they don't HAVE to provide a service to someone

I'd say they gave up that option once they sold the device. They could have refused to sell it initially, but after the transaction is completed, arbitrarily cutting of the service should not be permitted.

I think it should be illegal. Frame it in terms of a burger. If McDonald's says "since you say our food is bad we're messing with your burger after you bought it and we'll give you your money back if you return it" that would be illegal and probably, not sure though, a form of discrimination.

McDonalds is well within their rights to deny service to a customer (assuming it's not discrimination).

In fact I've seen them (and other restaurants) do this first hand.

A customer is being abusive, or giving the poor checkout person a hard time - if they get abusive or threatening, the manager will often intercede and tell them to leave the store.

Likewise, I used to work in a electronics store - if a customer is a being a jerk, you're well within rights to ask them to leave (politely). Obviously it's the nuclear option - but there's definitely precedent for it.

"Denying service" in those cases is not conducting any further sales/etc with them.

It's not remotely disabling things they've previously bought from you.

That's quite a different kettle of fish.

To be clear, the Garadget was _not_ remotely disabled (or bricked).

Here's a direct quote from the manufacturer to the customer:

"At this time your only option is to return Garadget to Amazon for refund. Your unit ID 210036...will be denied server connection."

How is that not being bricked?

You probably can't go to their house and pour water in their electronics and tell them they'll get a full refund if they ship it back to you.

Fine to deny future service, denying past service is the problem here.

He didn't mess with the customer's garage door opener, so it's not like messing with a customer's burger. It's more like cutting the customer off from the unlimited coffee refills when they get 86'd from the restaurant.

(But the coffee cup is useless without coffee!)

However, linking the action to a bad Amazon review and publicizing the device ID both demonstrate very poor impulse control.

"(But the coffee cup is useless without coffee!)"

Here, I disagree (or agree with you, depending on whether your italics indicate e-sarcasm).

You could fill it with water or tea or make your own coffee or even sell it to somebody else at nearly full value! (I'm sure the restaurant support would be happy to welcome a new customer back to the fountain of coffee).

You get my analogy.

It's not illegal. That is just the world always connected devices operate in. What Garadget ought to have done was in a professional tone, offer a refund. If the customer repeatedly use abusive language in the support system, go ahead, deny him service. But until then (and that means Amazon reviews and community forum posts are not counting), leave it running.

Anything else is just opening themself to a shitstorm of negativity.

> this COULD also backfire as bad publicity.

Assuming the review that nneonneo found is the correct one, then a journalist has already replied wanting more info, so it seems plausible that some bad publicity will come from it.

https://www.amazon.com/review/R2XHHHGM6BEUG6/ref=cm_cr_rev_d...

So he can return it for a refund. They're revoking his usage of the service. It's petty, it's going to Streisand them for a while, but it's certainly not illegal.

Perhaps a good analogy is getting banned from bnet after having bought Starcraft/Diablo CD... but in this case they're offering a refund for return.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com