SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Earlier this month, MoviePass announced that its customers, previously allowed to see one movie per day, would be limited to just three per month. At the time, the company said that the change wouldn't affect annual subscribers until their plan renewed. But it looks like MoviePass has changed its mind yet again, and probably to nobody's surprise. The company began circulating an email today notifying annual plan subscribers that they too will be limited to just three film showings per month.
"As of today, aligned with Section 2.4 of our Terms of Use, your annual subscription plan will now allow you to see three movies a month instead of the previous unlimited offering, and you'll receive up to a $5 discount on any additional movie tickets purchased," the email said. "This is the current standard plan now in effect for all current and new subscribers." And because the move is retroactive for the current monthly period, which varies by customer, some users will find that they've already seen their three movies once they receive the notification email. The company claims it "intends" to expand its offering of blockbuster and independent films in light of the plan adjustments.
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/24/moviepass-annual-subscribers-three-movie-plan/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @05:40PM (8 children)
Charge
Dispute
Either you will give me my money back, or my bank will take it back. Have fun with those chargeback fees. :)
I'd like to know what legal team they discussed this with said it was OK to change the terms of a contract after payment for that contract had changed hands.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday August 27 2018, @06:31PM (7 children)
MoviePass TOS, 2.4, linked in the summary.
One should read the contracts one signs before signing them. Whether a court would find that enforceable is a different question, but I don't immediately see why not. You agreed to pay a fixed amount for a service that they can alter the service levels of at any time in their sole discretion.
Maybe the question should be what legal team the buyer discussed this with and advised that it is in fact a good deal for the consumer?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @07:17PM (2 children)
You can't make a contract where you keep changing the service in unreasonable ways without giving the other party an option to agree or bow out. Otherwise companies like verizon would have jumped all over this when they took away unlimited and landlords could perpetually renew your lease while upping the rent. Also being a contract of adhesion and all.... much easier to get it thrown out.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 28 2018, @02:50PM (1 child)
Well, that's what they basically did. "Unreasonable" is a matter for a court given a specific change. "Unlimited" gets thrown out because the contract was made with the specific understanding it would be unlimited - this contract pretty well says the amount you get is the amount they allow you to have at any time. This contract isn't changing the amount required as consideration for the variable service. You are a free agent signing the contract and there are other ways to get movie tickets so this isn't adhesive.
And yes, it can be challenged in court... if there isn't a binding arbitration clause. And you can win or lose. It's just not clear cut that a plaintiff could win this - good luck finding a contingency lawyer to take it on (though you might!!!)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @03:47PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=contract+of+adhesion [lmgtfy.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @08:48PM (3 children)
There's certain things that you can't put into a contract and expect to enforce. For example, it's not legal to sell yourself into slavery via contract, a contract like that would never hold up in court, even if that was the intended effect of the contract and not just hidden somewhere in fine print.
Unilaterally changing of contracts isn't legal without the 2nd party having the option of opting out. There's a reason why cell phone carriers have those people grandfathered into their plans, changing the contract generally requires consent by the other party, the first party can't do it on their own.
If you read down in the contract, there's usually a clause indicating that not everything in the contract is enforceable and indicating that if something isn't enforceable, then it's just left out. You can put all sorts of things in a contract, but they're not automatically binding, sometimes they're put in there hoping that non-lawyers will see it and treat it as enforceable, even when it's not.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @11:10PM (1 child)
Clearly you have never read the ToS on the back of a marriage license.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday August 28 2018, @01:10PM
Or a cell phone service agreement.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 28 2018, @03:00PM
Correct. Slavery is a crime so you can't do that. How is this a crime?
The contract isn't being changed at all. The customers are receiving the goods promised by the contract (which MoviePass can vary the amount of at the sole discretion of MoviePass) for the same consideration. All the terms of the contract are still in force. It is certainly allowable to have a contract in which with performance and/or consideration clauses are variable. "You pay me $1.00. I'll invest it and do my best to make it worth more, however, the amount I return to you is based strictly on how your investment does, and I don't guarantee you will make a profit and you may lose it all." Perfectly legal. "You have hired me to come play at your Bar Mitzvah. You pay me $50.00. I agree to come and play for a length of time, that amount of time to be set by me at my discretion." Legal. You might sue me if I come and play one song for three minutes, and you might well win that. But if I come and play for 30 minutes and you wanted me to play for six hours? Nope. And if you were contracting with Sting and not me, a court might well find one three minute song for $50.00 to be a bargain. It is the fault of the consumer for signing an agreement which allows the performance goals to be changed at performer's whim, so long as it appears to a court or arbitrator that good faith efforts are being made to comply with the terms.
And I completely agree with you that one can write all sorts of unenforceable terms to a contract, and a good contract will indeed state that if any provision is unenforceable that the remainder of the agreement is still binding. But with something as simple as performance and consideration, if you throw either of those out in court what do you have left to contract about?
This sig for rent.