I wonder whether, under the law, people who have been transferred to the new FindMyPast site without their permission, are entitled to a refund of their subscription or a portion thereof? They are now paying for something they didn't ask for and in some cases can't access. The service they are offering is not fit for purpose.
Although policitians bandy around the phrase "fit for purpose" in all sorts of contexts, to a lawyer it has a very specific meaning and application under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
When you subscribe to FindMyPast or similar, you are not purchasing "goods". You are purchasing a limited use licence to access and use certain digital content. This is not covered by the SOGA 1979.
However, there is draft legislation, the Consumer Rights Bill 2013-2014, currently making its way through the Parliamentary process with a view to remedying what are seen as important gaps in consumer protection.
It is proposed that relevant SOGA-type protection be brought in for digital content, including (by clause 35 of the Bill) that it should be fit for a particular purpose (if communicated expressly or by implication by the consumer).
The draft legislation also contemplates (by clause 33(2)) that digital content should be of satisfactory quality. This would mean meeting the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of its description, price and "other relevant circumstances". Aspects of "quality" include fitness for the purpose for which digital content of that kind is usually provided, freedom from minor defects, safety and durability. This test is intended to be flexible and proportionate, depending on the price and nature of the content.
Obviously the conclusion of this legislative process is some way off. In the meantime there is a consensus that consumers of digital content are underprotected.
The usual caveat: Nothing in the above should be taken as legal advice or relied upon for any purpose.
