I don't understand American law, of course, but isn't this grounds for a lawsuit?
Overall, this looks like outright fraud – when someone buys a product, signing up to certain terms, and ends up not just getting less than they were offered, but also getting less and less over time.
Besides the obvious option of a refund and possibly additional compensation, we can demand that Grok operate in accordance with the law and require them to:
Maintain a transparent policy, displaying the exact number of generations offered by each tariff plan. No "several" or "almost unlimited" – these are not legal or economic definitions. Yes, there's a user agreement and all that, but there are already precedents where such agreements are declared null and void due to their absurdity or misleading nature.
A clear and unambiguous display of the exact number of generations and/or internal resources a user has, along with consumption statistics to monitor compliance with platform obligations.
If limits are reduced, a public warning of this must be given several days in advance, with proportionate compensation (e.g., bonus subscription days) for those who have ALREADY paid the agreed-upon rate.
Yes, I'm sure Grok has a brilliant legal team, but:
- Judging by the brutal limit reductions, things aren't going well, and the additional burden of legal costs could create the necessary pressure for concessions.
- The very fact of multiple lawsuits could demonstrate the riskiness of such a business model, affecting investors and the future stock price.
P.S. I understand that all this could have been done without malice, and Musk's economists didn't fully assess the risks and benefits, and realizing that the model isn't working, they are forced to reduce limits, but the laws should apply equally to everyone. Moreover, this does not relieve the obligation to publicly notify about changes in the services provided.