Mikeoso
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Mike
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2019
- Threads
- 21
- Messages
- 4,115
- Reaction score
- 33,808
- Location
- Iowa
- Website
- www.iowaparrotrescue.org
- Vehicle(s)
- Ram 1500, Jeep
- Occupation
- Retired history teacher
I dont disagree with you at all, AV. My point was that people who identify as hating govt interference in general look odd when they immediately demand that courts protect them from corporate abuse...or worse, conflate corporate greed AND govt intervention, as happened upthread. Some folks call that "house cat syndrome".When it comes to free market vs big government regulation I will definitely lean toward free market every time. Though I do agree some level of regulation is need to curb corporate greed. There is more than enough consumer protection regulation in place to handle this situation. You just need to make enough noise so someone will hear and listen to you.
Courts are also based on legal precedents in past cases. What law or legal precedent is there that states it's ok for a manufacturer to charge you a fee to use something that you have already bought and paid for?
I got no dog in the fight about remote start. I bought my jeep with the fewest electronic options possible. Where I live, I never even take the fob out of the vehicle, !et alone lock it. (Sure, come steal it. It's parked within shotgun range of my bedroom)
I do agree that unilaterally changing an existing agreement with a prior customer SHOULD be bad. But if what's going on is that a company is saying, "we used to provide this service for free, but now we're going to charge you for it", well, that might not be so clear.
Sponsored