Federal Trade Commission

I would encourage people to fill a complain at the EU, the EU is very bureaucratic, but at least they take actions.

The side is:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/competition_policy_and_the_citizen/consumer_liaison/

LL price increase should be seen as an antitrust infringement as they have no competition so they can do what they want, which they actually did.

and filling is free

Funny Americans who love to sue when the service they abused beyond the physical limits gets a makeover.

Linden Lab opens new sim, Openspace, to be used only for small simple deco, not malls, parties or clubs. People take service for granted, fill it up to the brim, exploit and game the system by using temp-on-rez prims, then throw avatars and scripts.

Linden Lab takes notice, gets lagged to death by customer abuse, exploitation and gaming of system. Linden Lab changes service to combat heavy loads, customers cry out 'fraud' 'anti-trust' 'misleading' 'cheating' 'theft' 'criminals' 'illegal'.

Ah, good old Secondlife. This thread is filled to the brim with hypocritics.

Don't feed the troll.

It is funny to see that some people still believe the story about the abuse of OS....think for a moment...they will put limits on them that abuse is not possible anymore..can you explain to me why they still want to increase the tier by 67%.

Ohh, would recomment to you to talk with an IT person about the additional costs of traffic on networks or servers with more workload.

67% increase with limits because they want you to buy a regular sim. Not the poor man's economy sim.

I noticed that they silenced Spacexcape Bridges amongst others

I also noticed how many posts they deleted. Bit late though .. I think the news is out

Intelligent as your post is (not), how do you account for Linden Labs giving so much technical support to those using Open Spaces as light residential usage? Is there a reason why they supported that .... why didn't they warn anyone about 'abuse'? Same reason that they delete people here, I would guess! PLONK!

Mercedes dosent raise the prices on their cars after you buy one and expect you to pay the diffrence. and as for the oil companys yes you should have

Thank you every body!! This thread has me ROTFLOL ... maybe I'm a bit stressed at work today?%! :=))
FTC & BB (in America) do not even have enough time to take care of "legit" RL issues; and now we are to bombard them with "virtual" issues?!? - get real pls :=))
If I work at there ~ I would suggest to the filer(s) to find entertainment somewhere else; like maybe start reading The Twilight Saga?! LOL ... JK!!!
Seriously, can we stop the gas prices from going up or our employer from creating new policy?

You didn't buy anything in SL. All you are doing is paying for a service. There is no product that you bought. Sims are not products, they are service plans. You don't own any sim, you simply own the right to manage it and you pay for that right in tier. This is why no lawsuit will have any chance against LL. They can change their service prices at anytime.

Unless those service price increases are deemed to be usary or abusive, which these appear to be to this layperson.

For that aurgument to be valid they should refund the "purchase price" of the open sim.

Have they offered to buy them back at the purchase price they sold them or do they expect people to abandon them ? (I havn't been keeping up to date on this)

As already mentioned, you had an upfront cost (entry price) that is considerable high and it covers more than 4 months of monthly fees. They continued to sell the product the day prior to the notice increasing (and didn't even pubblicized the price increase introduction on the land market the same day), it means that the last user that bought an openspace have been informed about the price increase that would have occurred 60 days after. So he remained "trapped" between the choices: a) accept the new price; b) abandon the land and loose the entry price just after 60 days of usage.
This is NOT legal, because the company that provides the service will earn the monthly subscription, plus the entry price, and have the server back in case of the non acceptance of the new contract terms.
In fact (legally, at least here in Italy) when new contract terms are being introduced in short term, the company is forced to offer a customer "bailaout" without any loss (refund).
The reason of these rules (and i guess they exists in USA as well) are pretty obvious, otherwise the market would be opened to any sort of frauds: in example (i did this example already in the past) i may sell a phone claiming a zero monthly subscription and unlimited phonecalls but with an upfront cost of $500, so everyone would consider it convenient because they would save the initial $500 after some months because they wouldn't even pay anything else in the future; ...but i'll then cancel the 0$ monthly subscription policy after 30 days, placing a $100 monthly fees ...a that point it wouldn't be convenient anymore, so the users will "abandon" the contract, but in the meantime i would have collected $500 as no-refundable upfront cost for each single subscription.
Is it legal? No it's it, a phone company that would do that in rl would be busted the day after... LL is on the edge because it didn't have much attention (yet) on it, but place some spot lights on what's happening here and u'll see that someone at the commission will wake up.