• deltapi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      If the new owners purchased the assets, name, and technology and not the company itself, then it’s beholden on the remains of the old company to honour the deal… Good luck with that.

      • philpo@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 minutes ago

        Which is a problem of the legal system around it.

        Within most(or all) EU countries this would count as a continuation of business and all previous liabilities (e.g. employees contracts, customers contracts, etc.) would need to be honored.

        Why it is done this way? To prevent people from doing exact that.

      • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        How many people start companies, rack up a bunch of debt, then create another company that buys everything except the debt?

    • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      There’s probably some fine print in the ToS that says they can do this. It may or may not be legal but that makes it a lengthier court battle to try to prove.

      • valkyre09@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        There are so many ways they can put the squeeze on. Session time limit, throttle fraffic, restrict usage times etc.

        Then you can sell a monthly VPN+ subscription and offer revisiting lifetime users 2 years free if they move to the new “better” service.

        I’m not saying I agree with any of this, but it’s certainly not a new strategy. They’ve nothing to lose. Those who are pissed off will leave, you already have their money and those who want to stay will pay up.

        The VPN company can have their cake and eat it