Gotcha! How Smart Device Makers Are Using Software Updates To Seize Control of Your Stuff
Actions by Futurehome, Echelon Fitness and others highlight a growing trend: smart device makers using firmware to impose new costs on owners. Also: court ruling on DMCA a win for right to repair.
A string of reports in recent weeks highlight a growing problem in the market for consumer electronics and smart home devices: vendors who use software updates to seize control of the devices they’ve sold: introducing substantial and previously undisclosed software subscriptions and threatening to kill off devices for owners who refuse to pay.
Take the case of Futurehome, a Norwegian smart device maker that recently declared bankruptcy. The company’s new ownership imposed a mandatory $117/year subscription fee on the approximately 30,000 customers who had previously purchased the company’s smart home hubs. Without payment, the firmware update disables local network functions, rendering devices virtually useless.
Contents:
+ DMCA Anticircumvention Exemption Upheld: A Win for Right to Repair
+ Compliance With California’s Right to Repair Law Needs Fixing
+ How ‘Right to Repair’ Will Reshape Asset Financing
+ A Right to Repair Will Reduce Inequality
+ Right to Repair Europe Criticizes Overpriced Parts
+ Right to Repair Provisions Stick in Senate & House Defense Authorization Bills The change first got called out on a Norwegian subreddit in June and immediately sparked complaints.
”They're removing functionality locally in a hub (computer) that I've paid for with an update. It feels a bit like Tesla should send an update where you have to pay a subscription to start the car,” commented one Reddit reader. “A local function that only works internally in the equipment I've already paid for shouldn't be blocked behind a paywall.”
In a recently posted video, YouTuber Louis Rossman likened the tactic to the approach taken by ransomware gangs to force payment from their victims. And Rossmann called out Futurehome’s lack of clear communication about the change, noting that users had to dig deep into the website’s FAQ to even find mention of the subscription requirement.
Smart devices “gotcha”: a growing problem with no clear fix
And the problem of purchased smart devices suddenly extending a hand and demanding monthly payments is not limited to Futurehome - not by a long shot.
As reported by Ars Technica: a recent firmware update by Echelon Fitness drew backlash from users after it disabled offline functionality on several models of its connected workout equipment, including popular stationary bikes and rowers.
Previously, Echelon users could access basic workout features without an active Internet connection. But the software update forces them to maintain a persistent Internet connection, even if they want to use preloaded or manual workout modes.
The update also elbowed out third party software products, like QZ, that have allowed owners to pair Echelon devices to connect to other fitness platforms like Strava, Peleton and Apple Healthkit. In a blog post, QZ’s creator, Roberto Viola, said that his software has worked seamlessly with Echelon’s products for more than five years and likely helped fuel the sale of thousands of devices. With the software update, however, all that ended.
“QZ was built to give users freedom and compatibility. This new system gives them dependence and risk,” he wrote.
By requiring an Internet connection and “handshake” to use their exercise equipment, Echelon risks bricking perfectly useable hardware that its customers own, Viola said.
Customers voiced frustration on social media and Reddit, arguing that this effectively strips them of product ownership and reduces their devices to expensive paperweights during outages or travel. Some noted that the update was applied automatically without clear prior notice, raising concerns about informed consent and user control.
In related news, Google recently declared that, as of October 25, 2025, the first and second generation Nest Learning Thermostats, dating between 2011 and 2014, will be unpaired and removed from customers Nest app or Home app. That change will also break third-party assistants and other connected features like Home/Away Assist. Nest owners will no longer be able to check the status of their thermostat in the Nest or Home app, remotely control the device, receive notifications from the device or change settings from their phone or tablet. In essence, the Nest “smart” thermostat will become dumb.
Ensh**tification: a growing trend
Critics see it as part of a growing trend of tech companies using software to limit post-purchase rights. For example, smart device maker Belkin announced that its Wemo smart home line (light switches, plugs, etc.) will lose cloud connectivity and app control by January 2026. Though the company states it is only ending “technical support,” the reality is the devices will stop functioning as expected.
And Peloton, the maker of popular home exercsise equipment, recently began imposing a $95 “activation fee” on secondhand Peloton bikes and treadmills, prompting a call from PIRG to cease imposing the unnecessary cost and respect the rights of ownership. “Your customers expect to truly own the products they buy–not to have ownership redefined by added costs and restricted functionality.“
As Louis Rossmann points out in his video, the absence of clear disclosure to current and would-be customers around issues like changes in total cost of ownership or software support is a major issue. This makes it difficult - if not impossible -for consumers to determine whether their specific model will continue to work following a software update.
Fixes: consumer transparency, choice and freedom
Changes are needed to address this growing problem - one that futurist and author Corey Doctorow has termed “enshittification.”
In March, The Secure Resilient Future Foundation (SRFF)* partnered with Consumer Reports, US PIRG and the Center for Democracy and Technology to unveil a model bill, the “Connected Consumer Products End of Life Disclosure Act,” aimed at requiring manufacturers and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide clear and timely information about the support lifecycles of connected devices.
Among other things, the proliferation of IoT devices in homes and businesses has created a significant security challenge. When these devices reach their end of life and no longer receive software and security updates, they become vulnerable to exploitation by malicious actors. These “zombie devices” can be hijacked and used in botnets, posing a risk to individual users and the wider internet.
“Consumers deserve to know how long their connected devices will be supported,” said Justin Brookman, director of technology policy for Consumer Reports.
Rossmann in his video advocates for smart devices being required to offer local API access so the device owners can retain control even after the manufacturer ceases support. He praises devices like the Venstar thermostat that function locally without an internet connection. He also advocates for the ability to use open source tools like Home Assistant, which allows users to manage devices independently of proprietary ecosystems.
"If you do not have access to a local API, in my opinion, you do not own that product. The company does." – Louis Rossmann
Rossmann also urged his followers to look for ways to reverse-engineer products to regain functionality stripped away by manufacturers, pledging $5,000 to anyone who restores functionality to bricked Futurehome devices and offering legal support for developers who face DMCA threats for creating Home Assistant plugins.
Ownership Means Control
The incidents highlight the prospect of a dark future in which software powered devices leave consumers in a position of buying many things, but “owning nothing,” Rossmann notes.
The fix collective action to create the policies and market changes needed to ensure a future in which smart technology enhances life without compromising freedom and centuries old rights of ownership which include the right to use, repair, modify and repurpose your stuff without requiring the manufacturer’s consent.
Stay tuned for more coverage of the fight against enshittification!
(*) Note: Fight to Repair News is a publication of the Secure Resilient Future Foundation
Got a repair complaint? Tell us! 😠
Do you have a complaint about a manufacturer who is blocking your effort to repair your product? The Repair Coalition wants to hear about it! Use the link below to talk about the repair obstacles you’ve encountered.
More News
DMCA Anticircumvention Exemption Upheld in Win for Right to Repair Movement
In a major ruling that favors efforts to win a right to repair, a U.S. court upheld a DMCA anti-circumvention exemption, rejecting attempts by software firms to undo an exemption that allows repairers to bypass software locks for equipment servicing.
This decision in TechFreedom v. FTC (July 3, 2024) was issued on July 21st by Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In it, Kelly dismissed a lawsuit brought by TechFreedom, a nonprofit think tank, challenging the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) authority to issue a revised “Statement of Enforcement Principles” under Section 5 of the FTC Act. TechFreedom had argued that the FTC’s withdrawal of the Obama-era guidance and adoption of new principles in 2021 lacked proper process and harmed the group’s ability to advise the public.
The court held that TechFreedom lacked Article III standing, primarily because it failed to show a concrete injury traceable to the FTC’s actions. Judge Kelly found that TechFreedom’s alleged harms—like difficulty educating the public—were too speculative or generalized to constitute legal standing. Additionally, the court concluded that the FTC’s policy statements are not final agency actions subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
While the case was dismissed without reaching the merits of the FTC’s conduct, it underscores the high legal threshold for standing in challenges to agency policy shifts, particularly when plaintiffs are not directly regulated or specifically harmed by the action in question. In the near term, it will ensure that independent and commercial repair activities that require repairers to disable digital locks —which is common for servicing critical devices like medical or industrial gear—remain protected under the law.
Source: mlex.com
Compliance With California’s Right to Repair Law Needs Fixing
A year after California’s right‑to‑repair law took effect, a state‑commissioned report finds uneven compliance, KQED reports.
While the law mandates that electronics and appliance makers disclose parts, repair tools, and manuals to consumers and independent shops, many firms fall short. Some provide minimal documentation, delay access, or charge prohibitive prices—undermining the aim to promote repair competition and reduce e‑waste.
The report indicates that companies are doing better than they were initially, but notable gaps remain. Regulators plan enforcement actions, including audits and potential penalties, to close loopholes and ensure full adherence to the law. Expect follow‑up reports and stricter oversight as the state sharpens implementation.
Source: KQED and Defense Daily
How ‘Right to Repair’ Will Reshape Asset Financing
Legislation enabling broader repair rights is poised to upend the asset-financing sector—from industrial machinery to electronics, according to a report by Monitor Daily.
Easier and more effective repair will change the markets thinking about the value of devices. Specifically: as assets stay in service longer, their resale value rises credit lifecycles lengthen, and financing models must evolve. Lenders, manufacturers, and leasing firms that lean heavily on traditional depreciation schedules face strategic disruption: financing now hinges more on an asset’s maintenance history than its original purchase date. Firms that integrate repair-friendly policies, digital maintenance tracking, and service-driven business models may gain competitive edge. The article argues that asset finance must pivot from a product-focused to a service-maintenance mindset to stay relevant in an era of repairability.
Source: Monitor Daily
A Right to Repair Will Reduce Inequality
One of the less discussed benefits of a right to repair? Lower levels of social inequality.
That’s the case made by an article at The Ecologist, which argues that right‑to‑repair laws carry deep social equity benefits. Prohibitive repair costs disproportionately affect low‑income households and communities of color, forcing premature product replacement and deepening economic inequality. Opening access to affordable diagnostics, spare parts, and manuals democratizes repair, preserves household budgets, and reduces electronic waste. The piece calls for policymakers—including the UK government—as part of its circular economy strategy to embrace repair rights as a tool not only for sustainability, but for economic justice.
Source: The Ecologist
Right to Repair Europe Criticizes Overpriced Parts
Right to Repair Europe has warned that excessive prices for official spare parts remain a key barrier to repair adoption—despite EU-level repair mandates.
A consumer survey found that the cost of parts was the most frequent obstacle cited (68%), often outweighing the decision to repair. The organisation calls on regulators to demand price transparency and fair part pricing to ensure EU repair policies deliver genuine circular economy outcomes.
Source: Right to Repair Europe
Right to Repair Provisions stick in Senate and House Defense Authorization Bills
Both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have incorporated right-to-repair provisions into their FY 2026 defense authorization bills. The House adopted Rep. Goodlander’s amendment (backed by Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez), which adds a new section (Title 10 § 4664) requiring expanded repair access for military equipment. The aim: reduce costs, improve readiness, and reduce dependence on original manufacturers. The initiative enjoys bipartisan support and reflects growing momentum in Congress to embed repair rights within federal procurement and military logistics frameworks.
Source: Defense Daily