And when it goes to court they usually lose. They can ban you in the future if they want, but they sold an "all you can eat" meal and are expected to provide that meal even if you're extra hungry.
Much like the Hetzner article, there's an obvious physical cap that can't be exceeded, and they're supposedly selling up to that cap.
It may simply not be legal for them to decide to drop customers just because they are, taken individually, unprofitable.
Think about an all-you-can-eat buffet. Some poor soul is gonna starve themselves so they can splurge and have a "good deal" on a lot of food. Most people will not, and the business would be in trouble otherwise. They still have to serve the patron who's eating a lot, because what kind of buffet would it be if it was "all you can eat, until you're eating so much that we're no longer making enough money"?
Or, some retailers sell items at a very low price, just to get people into the store in hope of them starting to buy more. Nothing stops you from getting into the store, getting the deal on those items and not buying anything else. The store may be losing money on you but they can't stop you from purchasing the item at the advertised price.
People who choose to spend their time and energy chasing deals to hyper-optimize the benefits on their credit card savings are entitled to their savings. Companies (credit cards or otherwise) are just interested in the total outcome of their operations anyway, not on making money off of every single customer. (Besides, even just defining what is a "profitable customer" is a hairy problem.)
You must obtain food but not from any one specific provider. No company will long "exploit" you (Hmm, where have we heard that term before?) unless they are protected from competition by a coercive state.
There's also an implied reasonableness test. That duffel bag I pulled out in the Olive Garden after purchasing the unlimited salads and breadsticks was disallowed. Not saying they are exactly comparable, but it's amazing how many of us can grasp that it's not truly unlimited but always think others are so easily fooled.
How is that at all comparable to this situation? That is putting in toxic ingredients that the buyer is not informed about. That's false advertising, fraud and criminal negligence. This is a company offering a game with terms of services clearly spelled out to you, with you free to accept or reject their offer with full knowledge of what they are offering.
>>A collection of people not providing you with food on your terms is not a violation of your rights right?
It is not a violation of my rights, but what you described is not that. That would be like if food providers all decided to offer food that is slightly poisoned, and disclosed that the food had been slightly poisoned. You would then have a choice to either take your chances on producing your own food, or taking their poisoned food.
Ok so should Olive Garden be allowed to call the police if I go and take the food from their restaurant without paying? Because you just said they have an infinite supply of it.
You mean, a company in the business of selling cookie banners that are deliberately in violation of regulations, shouldd be spared because its owner needs to eat? I can't see why anyone would have that sympathy.
To quote the article, the court ruled the way it did because he took those things "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment". Having a craving in the supermarket is not the same thing.
The purpose is to incentivize people to think twice about what they are ordering and how much they can eat, not to prevent people who are already intent on abusing the system. For that, you simply have to observe and ban people.
"If it's as I hypothesise and they can't afford a loaf of bread, I think their stance is reasonable from the perspective that this could be used to starve them to death"
You can always tell if something is reasonable by changing it from a company screwing an individual into an individual screwing a company. If an individual hurts a company to survive, we normally see that is illegal quite quickly. It's only when a company hurts an individual in order to make a profit that we struggle.
No they are saying that if you buy a meal, you should be able to package it up and sell it to someone else, which you can do. If I go buy a hamburger, I can walk right out onto the street and if someone else offers me money for it I can sell it. What I can't sell is access, which is what a buffet is, you're not paying for the individual item you're paying for access to the buffet.
> Selling something that is free is not a lucrative business for the Mafia
It can only be considered truly free if the supply is unlimited per person, as in an "all-you-can-eat" model.
If I gave you 100 milliliters of milk per day then you could technically make the claim that you have milk for free, but you won't be able to drink even a full glass of it.
Much like the Hetzner article, there's an obvious physical cap that can't be exceeded, and they're supposedly selling up to that cap.
reply