Xhosts.uk WordPress lifetime has been suspended !!!

rcy026 · March 6

@forest said:

@rcy026 said: but in most countries providers are not in any way obligated to let anyone be a customer

But they are obligated to uphold their side of a contract. OP already paid. This isn't a restaurant just refusing you service, it's a restaurant letting you come in, making you pay up front, and then refusing you service.

@rcy026 said: A lot of people seem to think that it is some form of unquestionable right to be a customer, while legally it is not a right at all but rather a privilege and as such it can be revoked at any time.

That's not true at all. A contract is binding. A provider cannot kick you out without standing. That is why most providers add broad catch-alls in their ToS (e.g. "interfering with the enjoyment of other customers") so that they do not run afoul of the law. The provider does not have some privileged position that the customer does not have. That's the whole point of having a contract. If one side could just unilaterally render it null and void, it would have no purpose.

A contract is binding as long as it's valid. If you are no longer a customer, you do not have a valid contract with the provider. If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.
XHost's terms of service literally says that xHost may chose to terminate the contract for any reason. If you are going to refer to what is says in a contract to prove a point, maybe you should read it first.

Providers can't create an all-encompassing contract that says they can just do whatever they want, either. In most jurisdictions, a severely one-sided contract would be considered an "unconscionable contract" and could not be legally enforced.

Kind of true, but with an important little detail. Almost every contract contains a clausule that allows either party to simply end the contract. Not change, but end. Legally this is often referred to as an "exit clause" and every contract worth the paper it's written on has at least one. So while it is kind of true that you can not change a contract, you can chose to simply end it.

It's not like I applaud the way xHost has handled this, not in any way. But legally they have done nothing wrong, and people screaming about rights and entitlements they simply do not have, never had and never will have just annoys me.
I know this is lowend, but buying services for $7 with a fake name has never ever been a right, anywhere. Grow the fuck up.

maxxxxx · March 6

@rcy026 said:
XHost's terms of service literally says that xHost may chose to terminate the contract for any reason. If you are going to refer to what is says in a contract to prove a point, maybe you should read it first.

So what? This is not even legal and thus it's not enforceable. That clause is simply invalid and the customer can just ignore it like it does not exist.

JohnFilch123 · March 6

@maxxxxx said: That clause is simply invalid

This hypothesis based on..?

maxxxxx · March 6

@JohnFilch123 said:

@maxxxxx said: That clause is simply invalid

This hypothesis based on..?

Besides the contract there are other laws that are applicable and will override those kind of invalid clauses in the contract. You simply can not put anything you like in the contract. Practically every country has this starting from the laws of obligation then things like Unfair Contract Terms Directive and also other stuff most people have never even heard of.

JohnFilch123 · March 6

@maxxxxx said: Besides the contract there are other laws that are applicable and will override those kind of invalid clauses in the contract

Yes, I understand but you cannot arbitrarily apply it to those terms you do not like.

JohnFilch123 · March 6

@maxxxxx said: Unfair Contract Terms Directive

This is Directive, so there are questions with Direct Effect of it. We are going in deep forest with this discussion it is a bit more complex than you imagine.

network · March 6

@forest said: If a provider could unilaterally revoke a contract they themselves entered into, then VeloxMedia would not have been banned!

They should have just added this clause:

@rcy026 said: xHost may chose to terminate the contract for any reason

maxxxxx · March 6

@JohnFilch123 said:

@maxxxxx said: Unfair Contract Terms Directive

This is Directive, so there are questions with Direct Effect of it. We are going in deep forest with this discussion it is a bit more complex than you imagine.

True this is an EU directive. But you'll find every country implemets it in law with slight variations. Even non eu countries will have similar laws. "Terminating the contract for any reason" will not fly in any "normal" country, perhaps not even in North Korea.

network · March 6

@rcy026 said: If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.

Without refund?

Ssre · March 6

@rcy026 said:
XHost's terms of service literally says that xHost may chose to terminate the contract for any reason. If you are going to refer to what is says in a contract to prove a point, maybe you should read it first.

The ToS (updated 15th Feburay 2026) doesn't have such a clause, even if it did, it wouldn't be enforceable. Although it does have a clause regarding termination for failure to complete KYC verification.

However, the previous ToS (archive) which these plans would have used, only had "Customers must ensure that their account information remains accurate and up to date", no mention of having to verify through a third party.

In addition, you're not allowed to update the ToS with unfair terms, and without giving the other party the opportunity to exit with a (partial) refund.

@rcy026 said:
Kind of true, but with an important little detail. Almost every contract contains a clausule that allows either party to simply end the contract. Not change, but end. Legally this is often referred to as an "exit clause" and every contract worth the paper it's written on has at least one. So while it is kind of true that you can not change a contract, you can chose to simply end it.

An exit clause typically has certain conditions attatched to it, like fraud, abuse, etc. What you are describing is a no-fault termination clause, these are often illegal in jurisdictions that have better consumer laws, such as Canada, Australia, Europe etc. The host is based in the UK, where it's unlikely such a clause would be legal.

Regardless, the provider doesn't have such a clause in their ToS.

@rcy026 said:
I know this is lowend, but buying services for $7 with a fake name has never ever been a right, anywhere. Grow the fuck up.

Did anyone suggest this? Who are you talking to?

rcy026 · March 6

@maxxxxx said:

@rcy026 said:
XHost's terms of service literally says that xHost may chose to terminate the contract for any reason. If you are going to refer to what is says in a contract to prove a point, maybe you should read it first.

So what? This is not even legal and thus it's not enforceable. That clause is simply invalid and the customer can just ignore it like it does not exist.

It is very much legal and tested several times in court.
UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, which I guess xHost adheres to being a UK based company, says that such terms must be fair and mutual, meaning as long as the customer has the same right to end the contract as the provider, it is legal.

Dasabo · March 6

@host_c said:
@Alex9568

You will get so mixed replies on your posting that I have no words for it, almost each and every one here sees the general subject of "KYC" as "bad, bad provider" yet that is not always the case.

@xHosts provided you with a correct answer, not to publicly discuss your case as that would involve exposing of personal details, and that is actually thing to do.

@JohnFilch123 wrote a very good answer: Submitting successfully does not mean successfully verified - That is what you got from stripe actually.

I also start to understand some of the issues some might have with these type of fraud prevention systems ( not limited to KYC alone ), so here is my reply to that:

Some fail to understand/or simply not care that for a company ( regardless the size it ) that operates in the EU ( ok, UK is BREXITED yet they have similar enforcement's ) it is high risk to operate outside of legislative rules, and this is getting more harder as the years pass.

Just understand that fake user data that gets on an invoice ultimately gets declared at the end of the moth to the IRS. So do all the crappy stolen payment types.

That is an operational risk, as in case of Fiscal Control or other Gov Agencies, fines can be in the number of Thousand of USD ( EURO, GBP or whatever currency in that country )

So sincerely, yes, an operator/provider will pay a 2 USD expense on a 3 USD plan just not to have a meeting with a 10.000 USD fine from the IRS ( or any other authority ).
Who ever chooses to not do this, it is their game, I shall not debate that.

At some point, a provider that wishes to scale up, will be forced to implement stricter rules or put the business to risk, now, if he chooses not to obey the legal rules and gets cough you all think the 3 USD clients will bail him out? highly doubt it..... ( unles they are like 10.000 in number )

The provider will take a logical business decision, yet most replies in threads like this tend to be emotional rather than fact based.

As an example: I am pissed on PLEX for the fact that my lifetime plan now has more PLEX content then my own stuff on my server, yet you don't see me on PLEX forum popping popcorn as they UI is now filled with shit that makes you pay subscriptions on a software I payed to use to show only my stuff.

I moved to another app, and that it is.

@forest

I hardly see the why to treat an operator hostile for having to do whatever he has to be comply today. Fact that he did not do this in the past, well..... that has passed, rules change.

If you think a host/operator/provider did not put in balance the reputation/image versus new rules, you are wrong, but..... loyalty points will not pay fines or keep the business alive.

Reputation is not solely based on the nice decisions one takes and the majority likes, it is also based on the shitty ones that make most uncomfortable but are needed.

Hate the game, don't hate the player. Don't like it, choose another game with another team.

Cheers!

The most sensible response I've read today...
I note with great regret that many users here do not understand that running a business is not like being at the playground. For them, the important thing is to pay €1 for a service and not comply with any regulations or laws.

rcy026 · March 6

@network said:

@rcy026 said: If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.

Without refund?

Again, depends on the laws of the country, but EU/UK basically says that you are entitled to a refund within 14-days of initial delivery, or if the delivered service is not as advertised or described, or otherwise not "fit for purpose" (like being down/unreachable or otherwise broken).
So in this case, I highly doubt that anyone would be legally entitled to a refund.

network · March 6

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said: If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.

Without refund?

Again, depends on the laws of the country, but EU/UK basically says that you are entitled to a refund within 14-days of initial delivery, or if the delivered service is not as advertised or described, or otherwise not "fit for purpose" (like being down/unreachable or otherwise broken).
So in this case, I highly doubt that anyone would be legally entitled to a refund.

When is a yearly/lifetime VPS considered "delivered"?

rcy026 · March 6

@network said:

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said: If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.

Without refund?

Again, depends on the laws of the country, but EU/UK basically says that you are entitled to a refund within 14-days of initial delivery, or if the delivered service is not as advertised or described, or otherwise not "fit for purpose" (like being down/unreachable or otherwise broken).
So in this case, I highly doubt that anyone would be legally entitled to a refund.

When is a yearly/lifetime VPS considered "delivered"?

When you get the login to it.
There is no such thing as a final delivery of a subscription if that is what you are trying to get at.

network · March 6

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said: If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.

Without refund?

Again, depends on the laws of the country, but EU/UK basically says that you are entitled to a refund within 14-days of initial delivery, or if the delivered service is not as advertised or described, or otherwise not "fit for purpose" (like being down/unreachable or otherwise broken).
So in this case, I highly doubt that anyone would be legally entitled to a refund.

When is a yearly/lifetime VPS considered "delivered"?

When you get the login to it.
There is no such thing as a final delivery of a subscription if that is what you are trying to get at.

So I can sell a yearly VPS, terminate on day 15 without refund?

rcy026 · March 6

@network said:

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said: If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.

Without refund?

Again, depends on the laws of the country, but EU/UK basically says that you are entitled to a refund within 14-days of initial delivery, or if the delivered service is not as advertised or described, or otherwise not "fit for purpose" (like being down/unreachable or otherwise broken).
So in this case, I highly doubt that anyone would be legally entitled to a refund.

When is a yearly/lifetime VPS considered "delivered"?

When you get the login to it.
There is no such thing as a final delivery of a subscription if that is what you are trying to get at.

So I can sell a yearly VPS, terminate on day 15 without refund?

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to give you legal advice. Google it or ask an AI.

suyadi92 · March 6

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said:

@network said:

@rcy026 said: If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.

Without refund?

Again, depends on the laws of the country, but EU/UK basically says that you are entitled to a refund within 14-days of initial delivery, or if the delivered service is not as advertised or described, or otherwise not "fit for purpose" (like being down/unreachable or otherwise broken).
So in this case, I highly doubt that anyone would be legally entitled to a refund.

When is a yearly/lifetime VPS considered "delivered"?

When you get the login to it.
There is no such thing as a final delivery of a subscription if that is what you are trying to get at.

So I can sell a yearly VPS, terminate on day 15 without refund?

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to give you legal advice. Google it or ask an AI.

Based on that logic it will be YES

Ssre · March 6

@rcy026 said:
It is very much legal and tested several times in court.
UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, which I guess xHost adheres to being a UK based company, says that such terms must be fair and mutual, meaning as long as the customer has the same right to end the contract as the provider, it is legal.

You're not allowed to arbitrarily cancel a consumer contract without cause in the EU or UK. If you do, the consumer would be entitled to a refund and possibly compensation.

rpqu · March 6

I imagine this thread would have been more fun with [email protected] presence

default · March 6

itachikonoha · March 6

@xHosts said:
Just to add some context from our side.

We host a fairly large number of accounts on the 20i platform and, based on our current figures, around 95–96% of customers completed the KYC verification without any issues.

In a few cases there were small problems such as mistyped phone numbers or email addresses, which were easily resolved once the customer opened a support ticket and we could assist them. Those accounts were then re-enabled without further problems.

Most of the cases being discussed relate to older one-time fee packages. Before implementing verification we sent advance notice explaining the change and why it was being introduced.

One important point is that 20i operates a shared hosting environment. If problematic activity occurs and an IP address becomes blacklisted or flagged, that can affect not just one user but potentially many other customers sharing the same infrastructure.

This is also where shared hosting differs from VPS hosting. With a VPS you typically have a dedicated IP assigned to your server, so if that IP becomes blacklisted it mainly affects that individual server and the user running it. In a shared hosting environment, however, a single issue can potentially impact hundreds or even thousands of accounts that share the same resources.

Because of this, upstream providers take risk management seriously. If too many problematic accounts exist under a reseller, it can create a situation where the provider may consider the reseller a potential risk to the platform, which could lead to the reseller services being terminated. Obviously that would affect all customers hosted under that account, including many legitimate users and small businesses who rely on their websites being online.

For monthly and annual customers who were unable to complete verification, we are working with them individually to arrange pro-rata refunds where appropriate.

For one-time fee packages, calculating refunds is much more difficult as some of these services have been active for a few years, and setting an arbitrary cutoff period inevitably creates edge cases.

Throughout this process our intention has simply been to keep the platform compliant and stable for everyone. We always encourage customers to open a support ticket if they have concerns, as in most cases issues can be resolved quickly once we can look into the account properly.

I will shoot the straight question.

I have a life time shared hosting (20i). I haven't done any KYC nor got any mail or notification for it.

Have I passed KYC test based upon my account information?

Or I can expect a notice any time soon?

Or should I raise a ticket to know the status?

If I wasn't in LET, I wouldn't have known that there was a KYC issue (my mail receives your mails without any issues and I checked, no mails from you regarding KYC in specific but I could be wrong so can you mention the time period when you sent those mails).

If I do fail, how much time I get to copy my content?

xHosts · March 6

I will shoot the straight question.

I have a life time shared hosting (20i). I haven't done any KYC nor got any mail or notification for it.

Have I passed KYC test based upon my account information?

Or I can expect a notice any time soon?

Or should I raise a ticket to know the status?

If I wasn't in LET, I wouldn't have known that there was a KYC issue (my mail receives your mails without any issues and I checked, no mails from you regarding KYC in specific but I could be wrong so can you mention the time period when you sent those mails).

If I do fail, how much time I get to copy my content?

We are currently processing accounts in batches to allow us to manage support requests and customer questions more efficiently.

Any accounts that are impacted will receive an email notification in the same way as this initial group of accounts and will be given time to complete the verification process.

itachikonoha · March 6

@xHosts said:

I will shoot the straight question.

I have a life time shared hosting (20i). I haven't done any KYC nor got any mail or notification for it.

Have I passed KYC test based upon my account information?

Or I can expect a notice any time soon?

Or should I raise a ticket to know the status?

If I wasn't in LET, I wouldn't have known that there was a KYC issue (my mail receives your mails without any issues and I checked, no mails from you regarding KYC in specific but I could be wrong so can you mention the time period when you sent those mails).

If I do fail, how much time I get to copy my content?

We are currently processing accounts in batches to allow us to manage support requests and customer questions more efficiently.

Any accounts that are impacted will receive an email notification in the same way as this initial group of accounts and will be given time to complete the verification process.

Understood. But how much time one gets to copy contents if KYC fails?

default · March 6

Customer pays, passes all validations for payment of lifetime plans, but later the provider wakes up one morning to use KYC using a platform which does not accept customers from regions the provider initially accepted. This has got to be a proper spring drama. By summer, this host will likely become some new kind of summer host.

Congratulations @xHosts for pooping on your existing customer base. Their money were good for starting your business using lifetimes, now your investors became a burden, right? So you changed the rules. Something tells me you're about to taste the disappointment of your own investors. Think how a beautiful a tree looks like when its roots start to decay.

ralf · March 6

@rcy026 said:
I know this is lowend, but buying services for $7 with a fake name has never ever been a right, anywhere. Grow the fuck up.

True, but that's not what's happened here. OP was been terminated because provider was suspicious about some other accounts and couldn't be bothered to check OP's account himself when Stripe failed verification on legitimate documents.

The OP has done nothing wrong according to both OP and provider (the provider has said he's not even looked at OP's account).

ralf · March 6

@Dasabo said:

@host_c said:
@Alex9568

You will get so mixed replies on your posting that I have no words for it, almost each and every one here sees the general subject of "KYC" as "bad, bad provider" yet that is not always the case.

@xHosts provided you with a correct answer, not to publicly discuss your case as that would involve exposing of personal details, and that is actually thing to do.

@JohnFilch123 wrote a very good answer: Submitting successfully does not mean successfully verified - That is what you got from stripe actually.

I also start to understand some of the issues some might have with these type of fraud prevention systems ( not limited to KYC alone ), so here is my reply to that:

Some fail to understand/or simply not care that for a company ( regardless the size it ) that operates in the EU ( ok, UK is BREXITED yet they have similar enforcement's ) it is high risk to operate outside of legislative rules, and this is getting more harder as the years pass.

Just understand that fake user data that gets on an invoice ultimately gets declared at the end of the moth to the IRS. So do all the crappy stolen payment types.

That is an operational risk, as in case of Fiscal Control or other Gov Agencies, fines can be in the number of Thousand of USD ( EURO, GBP or whatever currency in that country )

So sincerely, yes, an operator/provider will pay a 2 USD expense on a 3 USD plan just not to have a meeting with a 10.000 USD fine from the IRS ( or any other authority ).
Who ever chooses to not do this, it is their game, I shall not debate that.

At some point, a provider that wishes to scale up, will be forced to implement stricter rules or put the business to risk, now, if he chooses not to obey the legal rules and gets cough you all think the 3 USD clients will bail him out? highly doubt it..... ( unles they are like 10.000 in number )

The provider will take a logical business decision, yet most replies in threads like this tend to be emotional rather than fact based.

As an example: I am pissed on PLEX for the fact that my lifetime plan now has more PLEX content then my own stuff on my server, yet you don't see me on PLEX forum popping popcorn as they UI is now filled with shit that makes you pay subscriptions on a software I payed to use to show only my stuff.

I moved to another app, and that it is.

@forest

I hardly see the why to treat an operator hostile for having to do whatever he has to be comply today. Fact that he did not do this in the past, well..... that has passed, rules change.

If you think a host/operator/provider did not put in balance the reputation/image versus new rules, you are wrong, but..... loyalty points will not pay fines or keep the business alive.

Reputation is not solely based on the nice decisions one takes and the majority likes, it is also based on the shitty ones that make most uncomfortable but are needed.

Hate the game, don't hate the player. Don't like it, choose another game with another team.

Cheers!

The most sensible response I've read today...
I note with great regret that many users here do not understand that running a business is not like being at the playground. For them, the important thing is to pay €1 for a service and not comply with any regulations or laws.

I note with great regret that some providers jump into a thread without reading it and jump to the defence of other providers doing shitty things.

Who exactly has paid €1 for a service and not complied with any regulations or laws?

The OP paid more than that and has complied with all regulations, laws AND the TOS. Or was your comment purely hypothetical and unrelated to the OP?

maxxxxx · March 6

@Ssre said:

@rcy026 said:
It is very much legal and tested several times in court.
UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, which I guess xHost adheres to being a UK based company, says that such terms must be fair and mutual, meaning as long as the customer has the same right to end the contract as the provider, it is legal.

You're not allowed to arbitrarily cancel a consumer contract without cause in the EU or UK. If you do, the consumer would be entitled to a refund and possibly compensation.

@rcy026 said:

@maxxxxx said:

@rcy026 said:
XHost's terms of service literally says that xHost may chose to terminate the contract for any reason. If you are going to refer to what is says in a contract to prove a point, maybe you should read it first.

So what? This is not even legal and thus it's not enforceable. That clause is simply invalid and the customer can just ignore it like it does not exist.

It is very much legal and tested several times in court.
UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, which I guess xHost adheres to being a UK based company, says that such terms must be fair and mutual, meaning as long as the customer has the same right to end the contract as the provider, it is legal.

Any clause that provides unilateral right of termination must be balanced by a similar right to the other party. This would also need to be clearly and transparently communicated to the customers among other things.

techdragon · March 6

@xHosts said:

@forest said:

@xHosts said: For one-time fee packages, calculating refunds is much more difficult as some of these services have been active for a few years, and setting an arbitrary cutoff period inevitably creates edge cases.

For the sake of your reputation, any failure to KYC due to mistakes on your side (or on Stripe's side) should be met with a full refund even if the service has been active since the beginning. This will keep people from associating your brand with unfair termination. For $3, it's definitely worth it.

Now, I'm assuming that your ToS mentioned the possibility of KYC when the service was originally purchased, right? So customers always knew of the possibility that you may be required to KYC them?

We have always had a clause in our terms stating that “we may request additional identification or information to verify an order.”

I’m not going to confirm or deny details about individual cases, as discussing specific accounts publicly would not be appropriate. Some assumptions are being made that failed KYC checks simply mean someone was “unlucky,” but compliance processes are rarely that simple.

To speak in general terms: when a KYC request is made, a customer may confirm their email and phone number and upload documents. However, that alone does not automatically confirm authenticity. Unfortunately, it is possible for people to obtain document templates or attempt to submit altered information.

This is why providers such as Stripe perform automated checks and cross-referencing against known patterns — for example previously flagged documents, reused details across different submissions, or other inconsistencies. Because of this, verification outcomes are not always a straightforward pass or fail based only on what is uploaded.

Each case therefore has to be reviewed on its own merits, and sometimes decisions are based on risk signals that are not appropriate to discuss publicly.

From a business perspective, when dealing with compliance matters we have to follow the process rather than make exceptions based on external pressure. Our goal is simply to operate responsibly and keep the platform stable for all customers.

Let's be honest, there are no complex internal systems or algorithms. You're reselling 20i $99pm unlimited web hosting plan. Everything you use is external and provided by a third party.

You also filed your accounts late and were nearly struck off last year - maybe you should consider your own ability to meet compliance requirements.

itachikonoha · March 6

@rcy026 said:

@forest said:

@rcy026 said: but in most countries providers are not in any way obligated to let anyone be a customer

But they are obligated to uphold their side of a contract. OP already paid. This isn't a restaurant just refusing you service, it's a restaurant letting you come in, making you pay up front, and then refusing you service.

@rcy026 said: A lot of people seem to think that it is some form of unquestionable right to be a customer, while legally it is not a right at all but rather a privilege and as such it can be revoked at any time.

That's not true at all. A contract is binding. A provider cannot kick you out without standing. That is why most providers add broad catch-alls in their ToS (e.g. "interfering with the enjoyment of other customers") so that they do not run afoul of the law. The provider does not have some privileged position that the customer does not have. That's the whole point of having a contract. If one side could just unilaterally render it null and void, it would have no purpose.

A contract is binding as long as it's valid. If you are no longer a customer, you do not have a valid contract with the provider. If you seriously believe that a provider cannot kick out a customer if they want to, reality is going to hit you in the face like a shovel one of these days.
XHost's terms of service literally says that xHost may chose to terminate the contract for any reason. If you are going to refer to what is says in a contract to prove a point, maybe you should read it first.

Providers can't create an all-encompassing contract that says they can just do whatever they want, either. In most jurisdictions, a severely one-sided contract would be considered an "unconscionable contract" and could not be legally enforced.

Kind of true, but with an important little detail. Almost every contract contains a clausule that allows either party to simply end the contract. Not change, but end. Legally this is often referred to as an "exit clause" and every contract worth the paper it's written on has at least one. So while it is kind of true that you can not change a contract, you can chose to simply end it.

It's not like I applaud the way xHost has handled this, not in any way. But legally they have done nothing wrong, and people screaming about rights and entitlements they simply do not have, never had and never will have just annoys me.
I know this is lowend, but buying services for $7 with a fake name has never ever been a right, anywhere. Grow the fuck up.

I don't understand why you are so much agitated that considering others are replying respectfully.
Just because there is exit clause doesn't mean any court will deem it legal if it is one sided. Latter supercede the former.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Xhosts.uk WordPress lifetime has been suspended !!!

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Xhosts.uk WordPress lifetime has been suspended !!!

Comments