bwer1233

(Opening note that I was told to not reply, but I am anyway, because I am no longer planning to follow through with what I said in my last comment. Will explain below) Thank you for your reply. It is refreshing to be able to have a conversation as adults on a disagreement without the fear of it devolving into any form of attack. (I mean this 100%, no sarcasm) Onto your point, Piriform is currently on the up-and-up. Everything is disclosed perfectly. After a deeper review and reading your reply, it seems that there is an answer for just about all complaints here, except one. Why does my (and others receipts posted above) list "software updates" on the list of products purchased when I can no longer get software updates on my product? If there was a term on said updates, I should have been able to find that somewhere. One of the products I listed in my first comment does cut off updates after 3 years, but that is clearly listed on the receipt. (An asterisk is placed next to software updates, with clarification on said terms at the bottom.) I dont feel like this is enough to do anything about. At most I'd get a refund amount, which I'm sure I could ask for and get right now and avoid legal fees. The act was to just bring to light that this is (was) wrong. Yes, I was upset. I spent money on something I thought was one thing and is another. The terms never changed, The process was just misleading in the past but has since been fixed. Lawyer still feels like there is something here, but I don't.

It is mandated by law (in the US and UK) that any service sold has to disclose the terms of the purchase, as well as presenting exactly what the exchange is for in a "manner in which is clear to the purchasing party." The US law even goes into some details regarding subscription services needs to have the term length of the service clearly displayed on any form of payment confirmation, as well as being clearly displayed at the point of purchase (ie, the page where we select Free or Pro versions). My lawyer has agreed to draw up a lawsuit, and once ready we will be contacting affected parties to build a class action suit. Having these terms in the EULA is not enough. The mandate states that you MUST disclose what you are actually purchasing in such a way that it is clear to the customer what they are buying. We paid for software that was not clear in what service was being provided, therefore it is safe to assume you were buying a license, not subscribing to a service or purchasing something version limited. I have 8 current software licenses for various items. EVVERY SINGLE ONE discloses that it is either a lifetime license, or a time limited subscription as part of the itemized list on my receipts. As well as on the products main webpage. You did not sell me a version limited product, or a 1 year subscription. It only lists the products, so you sold me the products. @Dave CCleaner you are missing the point completely. We understand what the EULA says. We have been made aware Piriform never ACTUALLY sold us lifetime licenses. The problem is your EULA contradicts what my receipt says. You don't get to play dumb during the advertisement and hook, and then slip a qualifier into the EULA. That is illegal. I understand you have to remain impartial when posting here. I'm sure you'd be instantly fired if you agreed with any of us publicly on here. We also know this isn't your policy or your fault. However, it needs to be known that this business practice is tricking people into buying something different that what is implied EVERYWHERE but the EULA.