#If a company sells paid digital services

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

loud quiver
pine thicket
#

Hallo

loud quiver
#

You have different ways to contact Windsurf. In the footer you have one, in the navbar you have Contact and Support, and I’m also pointing out another one that might be useful: support@windsurf.com

2026-01-27_18-59-34.png 2026-01-27_19-00-19.png
pine thicket
#

i tried the conntact email and the ai support

#

ok send

sand salmon
pine thicket
#

email is out

#

so now what

sand salmon
# pine thicket email is out

Directive 2011/83/EU, Article 16 (Exceptions to the right of withdrawal)
Provision of digital content that is not supplied on a tangible medium, if performance has commenced with the consumer's prior express consent and his confirmation that he thereby loses his right of refusal

I feel sorry when laws work against themselves, although I don't feel sorry for you.

pine thicket
#

fake contact adresses dont count

#

discord dont counts

sand salmon
#

Well, according to the law, you are not obligated to respond quickly.

#

Directive 2011/83/EU

#

This directive requires contact information (email, phone number), but it doesn't set a timeframe for support response. The fact that a company doesn't have 24/7 chat or responds slowly doesn't constitute a violation of the law.

pine thicket
#

if no email comes - european law is two weeks - and is has to be an email and no discord - i ask my law insurance again

sand salmon
#

How sad it is when you are scattered by your own laws.

sand salmon
pine thicket
#

you forgot dgsvo

sand salmon
#

According to Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR, companies are obligated to ensure maximum data protection and system security. Providing the internal technical logs you request as "evidence" could compromise the system's architecture. Since you have already confirmed your use of the service, further disclosure of technical data is denied for security reasons. Your request conflicts with the principles of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c)).

#

If you're throwing around your own laws, at least understand.

#

So I'd prefer that you shut your mouth and don't talk about your laws anymore.

pine thicket
#

EU law clarification (Imprint / trader identification):

If a company offers paid digital services to EU consumers, it must provide clear and easily accessible trader identification, including a legal name and direct contact details (at least an email address).

This is not optional and not replaced by Discord or AI chat.

Relevant EU law:

If a service is paid, EU-targeted, and ongoing, consumers must have a verifiable, off-platform contact channel.
Public chat requests for personal or payment data are not an acceptable substitute.

#

GDPR clarification (public chats & personal data):

Under the GDPR, requesting or processing personal data (including account, payment, or identifying information) in a public chat is not compliant.

Relevant GDPR provisions:

Article 5(1)(c) GDPR – Data minimisation
Personal data must be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary.
Asking for personal or payment-related details in a public Discord channel violates this principle.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

Article 5(1)(f) GDPR – Integrity and confidentiality
Personal data must be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security.
Public chats do not provide confidentiality.

Article 24 GDPR – Responsibility of the controller
The company must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure GDPR compliance.
Public chat support is not an appropriate channel for handling personal data.

Article 32 GDPR – Security of processing
Controllers must ensure data security proportional to the risk.
Collecting personal data in public forums fails this requirement.

Conclusion:
If personal data is required, the controller must provide a private, secure, off-platform communication channel.
Requesting such data publicly is not GDPR-compliant, regardless of whether the user “voluntarily” posts it.

#

will only react from now on email - or ask my lawer

sand salmon
# pine thicket **EU law clarification (Imprint / trader identification):** If a company **offe...

EU Law Clarification (Abuse of Right and Performance):
While you enjoy citing the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), you conveniently ignore that procedural formalities regarding 'trader identification' do not grant you the right to commit digital fraud.
Relevant EU Law he forgot to mention:
Directive 2011/83/EU, Article 16(m): You gave express consent, you consumed the credits, and you acknowledged the loss of withdrawal rights. Formal 'contact details' issues do not resurrect a dead right to a refund for consumed digital content.
The Principle of 'Abuse of Right' (EU General Law): EU law does not protect consumers who use transparency rules as a pretext to avoid paying for services already rendered and enjoyed.
GDPR Article 5(1)(f): Demanding internal logs via public channels under the guise of 'redress' is a direct violation of system integrity and data minimization.
Layman translation: You ate the fish. You liked the fish. Now you are complaining about the font size on the restaurant’s business card to avoid paying the bill. It’s pathetic.
Conclusion: Shut your mouth. Your 'legal' noise won't get you a refund for a service you've already used. Move on."

#

So don't throw me your library, it's too young for me.

pine thicket
#

Your conclusion is incorrect.
Loss of the right of withdrawal (Directive 2011/83/EU, Art. 16(m)) does not remove obligations on trader identification, transparent billing, or GDPR-compliant handling of personal data.

EU law still requires clear provider identification and a direct contact channel (E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, Art. 5; Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU, Arts. 5–6).

Requesting payment or account data in a public chat is not GDPR-compliant (GDPR Arts. 5(1)(c), 5(1)(f), 24, 32).

I will continue only via email. Further requests for personal or payment data in public channels are declined.

sand salmon
# pine thicket Your conclusion is incorrect. Loss of the right of withdrawal (Directive 2011/83...

Since you insist on a library battle, let’s add the volumes you’ve conveniently ignored to prevent your escape from reality:
Abuse of Rights (General Principle of EU Law):
You are attempting to use GDPR and Directive 2000/31/EC not to protect your data, but to evade payment for a service already consumed. Under settled EU case law (e.g., Case C-373/97, Diamond 18), "EU law cannot be relied upon for abusive or fraudulent ends." Using procedural formalities to justify a refund for used digital content is a textbook Abuse of Right.
Directive 2011/83/EU, Article 14(4)(b):
Since you consumed the digital service (credits), you are liable for the value of what was provided. Your focus on "contact channels" does not negate the fact that the service was delivered and exhausted at your request.
GDPR Article 17(3)(e) — Right to Erasure Exception:
You complain about data in chat, but under Article 17(3)(e), personal data can be processed and retained for the "establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims." The company is entitled to keep and use the logs of your Discord interactions to prove your fraud and defend against your baseless refund claim.
GDPR Article 12(5) — Manifestly Unfounded Requests:
Your repetitive demands for data and "identification" while simultaneously trying to claw back money for used services can be classified as "manifestly unfounded or excessive." Under this article, the company is entitled to charge a fee or simply refuse to act on your nuisance requests.

#

@loud quiver
I think he needs to be banned.