CAT:Documentation/Core Patterns

Consumer Action Taskforce (CAT) Core Taxonomy

This page documents the core terminology and taxonomic structure used throughout the CAT Wiki to categorize and classify various forms of consumer-impacting practices. This taxonomy helps ensure consistent documentation and classification of incidents, allowing for better tracking and analysis of patterns across different companies and industries.

Purpose and Usage

This taxonomy serves as a standardized vocabulary for documenting consumer-impacting practices. It helps:

• Maintain consistency across articles
• Enable pattern recognition across different companies and industries
• Facilitate research and documentation
• Support clear communication about complex issues

Agreement Abuse

Core pattern focused on modifications to user agreements and terms of service that impact consumer rights.

License Laundering

Definition: Practices that undermine traditional concepts of ownership through systematic changes to license agreements.

Subcategories

• Converting purchases to licenses
  • The reclassification of outright purchases as licensed services
  • Changes that convert ownership to temporary access rights

• Revoking perpetual rights
  • Modification or removal of previously granted "lifetime" or "perpetual" access
  • Changes to terms that limit previously unlimited usage rights

• Redefining ownership terms
  • Alterations to fundamental ownership definitions
  • Restrictions on previously granted transfer or resale rights

Feature Ransom

Definition: Practices where core functionality is restricted or removed unless users accept new terms or conditions.

Subcategories

• Blocking core functionality
  • Restricting access to primary features pending new agreement acceptance
  • Disabling key features until users agree to updated terms

• Converting features to services
  • Reclassification of built-in features as external services
  • Moving offline capabilities to cloud-dependent services

• Requiring new agreements for use
  • Mandatory acceptance of updated terms to maintain existing functionality
  • Forced agreement updates to retain device access

Term Spiking

Definition: Practices involving changes to terms of service or user agreements implemented in ways that may reduce user awareness.

Subcategories

• Silent Updates
  • Changes implemented without direct user notification
  • Modifications made without requiring explicit acknowledgment

• Buried Changes
  • Significant modifications hidden within lengthy updates
  • Important changes placed in difficult-to-locate sections

• Version Obfuscation
  • Unclear or confusing version numbering
  • Difficulty in tracking or comparing different versions of agreements

Legal Lockout

Definition: Implementation of terms that modify users' legal rights or access to legal remedies.

Subcategories

• Arbitration requirements
  • Mandatory arbitration clauses
  • Restrictions on judicial proceedings

• Class action restrictions
  • Limitations on participating in class action lawsuits
  • Requirements to pursue claims individually

• Jurisdiction control
  • Specified venue requirements
  • Geographic restrictions on legal proceedings

Rights Stripping

Definition: Systematic removal or reduction of consumer rights through agreement modifications.

Subcategories

• Warranty elimination
  • Removal or reduction of warranty coverage
  • Changes to warranty terms or conditions

• Usage restriction
  • New limitations on previously permitted uses
  • Additional constraints on product utilization

• Remedy blocking
  • Restrictions on available remedies
  • Limitations on compensation options

Service Siphoning

Definition: Practices that convert traditional purchase models into service-based or subscription models.

Subcategories

• Subscription forcing
  • Conversion of one-time purchases to subscription models
  • Required ongoing payments for continued access

• Feature reclassification
  • Redefining included features as premium services
  • Separating core functionality into paid tiers

• Access degradation
  • Reduction in service quality or availability
  • Implementation of artificial limitations

Implementation Notes

• Categories may overlap in some cases
• Use most specific applicable category
• Multiple categories may apply to single incidents
• Maintain clear documentation of changes
• Include specific examples when possible

References

Implementation Guidelines

When categorizing incidents or practices:

• Use the most specific applicable category
• Multiple categories may apply to a single incident
• Include supporting evidence and citations
• Maintain neutral, factual language
• Focus on documented actions and effects

Related Pages

• CAT:Style Guide
• CAT:Documentation Templates
• CAT:Incident Reporting Guidelines

Notes

This taxonomy is subject to ongoing refinement and expansion as new patterns emerge. Suggestions for additions or modifications should be discussed on the discussion page.

⚠️ Article status notice: This article needs additional work

This article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues.

This notice will be removed once sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the discord and post to the #appeals channel.

Notice: This Article Requires Additional Verification

---

This article has been flagged due to verification concerns. While the topic might have merit, the claims presented lack citations that live up to our standards, or rely on sources that are questionable or unverifiable by our standards. Articles must meet the Moderator Guidelines and Mission statement; factual accuracy and systemic relevance are required for inclusion here!

Why This Article Is In Question

---

Articles in this wiki are required to:

• Provide verifiable & credible evidence to substantiate claims.
• Avoid relying on anecdotal, unsourced, or suspicious citations that lack legitimacy.
• Make sure that all claims are backed by reliable documentation or reporting from reputable sources.

Examples of issues that trigger this notice:

• A topic that heavily relies on forum posts, personal blogs, or other unverifiable sources.
• Unsupported claims with no evidence or citations to back them up.
• Citations to disreputable sources, like non-expert blogs or sites known for spreading misinformation.

How You Can Improve This Article

---

To address verification concerns:

• Replace or supplement weak citations with credible, verifiable sources.
• Make sure that claims are backed by reputable reporting or independent documentation.
• Provide additional evidence to demonstrate systemic relevance and factual accuracy. For example:
  • Avoid: Claims based entirely on personal anecdotes or hearsay without supporting documentation.
  • Include: Corporate policies, internal communications, receipts, repair logs, verifiable video evidence, or credible investigative reports.

If you believe this notice has been placed in error, or once the article has been updated to address these concerns, please visit the #appeals channel on our Discord server: Join here.