Decision Over Discontinuation of Device Features

A recent case over Meta’s discontinued Portal devices is an interesting one for all device makers.  In Shipley v. Meta Platforms, plaintiffs allege that Meta marketed the devices as having certain “built-in” features, including voice assistant, video calling and streaming capabilities, but later removed many of those functions after the products were discontinued, substantially reducing their usefulness. 

The court allowed plaintiffs’ California unfair competition claim to proceed, finding it plausible that consumers were harmed when Meta allegedly “bricked” core functionality before the end of the product’s useful life, even though the changes occurred outside the warranty period.

The court also suggested that representations that features are “built-in” could plausibly convey permanence to reasonable consumers, and that broad disclosures stating that functionality may change may not necessarily resolve that issue at the motion to dismiss stage. While the court dismissed certain consumer protection claims for pleading deficiencies, it granted leave to amend rather than rejecting the theories outright.

The key takeaway is that courts may increasingly scrutinize the relationship between hardware, cloud/software functionality and consumer expectations. Companies that market hardware products whose value depends on continuing software support or cloud-based services should consider whether their marketing materials, disclosures, warranties and terms of service clearly address if, when and how functionality may change over time, particularly when products are discontinued or transitioned to paid or modified service models.