Sure there is. When purchased, it was able to do something. Due to an update, the customer has now been misled, because a feature was removed.

In most countries, that would violate consumer rights. There's an ethics argument here.

That's a highly creative interpretation of events. The software license agreement usually upfront covers what can or cannot not change. It is pretty rare in most countries to see successful legal action for changed features, but best of luck.

The ACCC is more than happy to explain unenforceable terms, if you'd like to do business with Australia.

Feel free to consult Steam, Google, Meta and others, if a software license is enough to ignore consumer rights.

I look forward to them sternly changing Bambu Labs' practices!

They will just fine them into oblivion; they are known to fine companies AUD10M to AUD50M for this sort of thing, and from 1st April this year they can now fine up to AUD100M.

Will this mean that Bambu will withdraw from the Australian market? Possibly maybe probably, but the ACCC takes a very hard stance against bait and switch.

It's a whole lot better than the US, but AUD100M isn't enough to scare a lot of companies. A law with real teeth would go after an increasing percentage of their revenue for each offense.

As a percentage of global revenue, sure, it's not much. But as a percentage of what that company is likely to make in the Australian market, it can be significant.

The largest ACCC fine to date for a company undertaking anti consumer practices is $483m against an educational provider for misleading students.

I'd be reasonably happy to lodge a complaint if I could find a version that's reasonably articulated. As a Bambu customer in Australia I switched my printer to local mode and its been great.

Australia is a small enough market to not matter much

Then why did those company fight, and not just leave...?

Worth pointing out also that the US is the odd one out, here. Europe also enforces consumer rights.

A small, more ethical company filling the void Bambu Lab left can grow much faster and eat into Bambu's market share in a relatively short time.

Yes, it's not as simple as that, but it's not that impossible either.

The only place you can change contracts at will on the company side is the US, and even there it probably depends on the state.

This kind of firmware update to remotely disable feature is also illegal in the EU

Australian customer protection laws were the initial reason why Valve introduced refunds into Steam.

No, it’s not creative at all, it’s what happened — I have first hand experience to corroborate this.

Regardless, at least in the US, not only are software-based ToS becoming unenforceable, but there’s a large upswing towards “right to repair” legislation, which, I think, is what you’re arguing against here… and I really think you’re going to be on the wrong side of history with your current line of thinking (despite what Bambu Labs does).

No, it is with you -- the legislators are doing "fine" (and, again, are heading in a fine direction wrt RTR and software ToS).

I have no idea why you think copyright violations apply here? You seem to be throwing legal terms around without regard for their actual meaning. It's clear you're here to argue for the sake of argument, but I'd really encourage you to reflect and think about why you're so loyal to a corporate entity instead of your fellow consumers (of which there are many in the parent and sibling comments... hint: you may be on the wrong side).

Just for fun, pretend you bought a propane grill for cooking on Monday. On Tuesday, you cooked some bbq chicken and some corn. Later on Thursday, and without your knowledge or authorization, the grill no longer allowed you to use the propane apparatus for cooking non-meats unless you call a special telephone number and said a magic word whenever the call was answered. As a minimum, I feel, it'd be very confusing because, even though you're doing the exact same thing as Tuesday, the outcome is not the same.

Your freedoms have been restricted by someone else; if you are okay with that, then have fun licking boots. The rest of us will still be here advocating for your freedoms.

Taking functionality away from a product after you bought it is a scum move. If the law lets them get away with it, the law should be changed.

When I buy a product, I look at reviews and make my purchasing decision on the features and functionality at the time of sale. If a software update later ruins that, I want the option to get my money back.

The "agreement" is at best coerced, and under blackmail of hardware you bought and paid for.

At worst, its a fraudulent indefinite rental masquerading as a 'sale'.

And lets discuss 'updates that fuck over your hardware'. In dwcent countries, thats hacking, and a serious criminal charge. But lol, companies are somehow exempt.

The license agreement being the AGPLv3?

Maybe legally, but morally “you have permanent physical access to this but don’t ’own’ it” and anti-circumvention are debatable.

There’s a small benefit of anti-circumvention where businesses sell hardware for cheaper with restrictions and a TOS that prevents bypassing them. But even that doesn’t apply here because Bambu changed the software after purchase.

This reminds me of RMS and GPLv3. Now I personally don't use GPLv3, but this here is literally a case-in-point, and it is not even only limited to the "cloud-only". Because this now includes a company threatening to sue a developer. If they sue one developer, they, by proxy, sue all of them in principle. So RMS was kind of right.

> If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS

How does the TOS get involved here? I don't use their TOS. Why would or should they be able to enforce it? Note that it also depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, Microsoft's EULA never had any legal bearings in the EU.

> If specific terms in a contract are unfair, they are not binding on you and the trader may not rely on them.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...

There's absolutely a moral high ground in it. That's the point.

Nobody is arguing against Bambu's legal right to be arseholes.

Isn't their software based on AGPL'd code?

If so, then yes, the software too

Its the people's software though, used under AGPL by Bambu. It never was Bambu's software.

ESL? look up the definition of the word moral

"Bambu's software" is forked from an AGPL project and is therefore itself AGPL. I have a right to fork, modify, and use it how I wish subject to the terms of the AGPL. Bambu's TOS is irrelevant. Their TOS is superceded by the terms of the AGPL.