I have had a product on Marketplace since 2007 that can be remotely disabled.

I installed a remote disable so that I could give a refund and effectively take back the product.

As the product became more popular I added an acceptable use policy which allowed me to disable the product if they were using it to disrupt my servers, support group, forum etc.

I also use it to disable buggy or obsolete versions of my products after delivering updated ones to all of the customers.

Finally I use it to disable copies of the products being used by people who obtain them through a permission exploit. Ie. Theft.

I have never disabled a product without refunding it because such behavior would be fraud under the abuse report system.

if i bought a faulty product I would always contact the creator or seller first and ask for the product to be fixed and redelivered. Then if the product doesn't get fixed I would make the decision to not buy from that seller ever again. I think it is really bad business to sell faulty and broken items personally. Reminds me one time when I was buying plantpet seeds off marketplace and i bought some seeds that were outdated and unusable and broken. Those sellers never did get back to me but thankfully I didn't lose a lot of money anyway but they lost me as a customer when I found out they were selling faulty old seeds that wasn't working. So sometimes you have to be careful especially if buying breedables like plantpets off resellers but also if your buying gachas and other tradables off people that are reselling items that they haven't even created themselves.

This new FR was posted as one potential software solution: https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/make-scripts-open-source

I agree with this issue, UNLESS it was a minigame or other service that came with its own Acceptable Use Policy.

An example would be the Muffins Milkers system, which is only available inworld, and is only sold to those wanting to start a dairy/stable of their own (landowners) - participants can get everything they need for free from any participating dairy.

There have been multiple instances where farm owners set up scripts and bot accounts to 'automate' the game, such that they shoot to the top of the production leaderboards without anyone actually playing the game. And there is a very clear "no cheating" clause in the AUP for the game. No bots, no scripted auto sitters, no invisible guides around the pony circles, none of that. What's the penalty if you get caught? Muffin deletes your dairy from the game's external database, and bans your account from participating in OTHER dairies. No refund, no second chances, it's "Bye, Felicia."

And people bitch and moan and complain to LL and even threaten real-world legal action, because they got busted cheating in an SL minigame and kicked off the system.

So, for LL to step in to sanction content creators for 'turning off' someone's purchase, there had better be a high bar to reach to prove that this wasn't due to the purchaser attempting to pull some shenanigans of their own - i.e. hacking the product, reverse-engineering the product, incorporating the product into something they sell to others, all of that. The complainant had better bring receipts that they were wronged, and if the content creator brings receipts that the disabling of Product X was done for valid reasons, the disable/delete/ban should stand, and that Resident being put on notice for wasting LL Customer Service's time on a frivolous or malicious complaint.

With how server queries in SL currently works, it's going to be borderline impossible to find any inworld solution for something like this, as changing or updating any code would terminate literally millions of products due to obsolescence (every kittycat, every teegle horse, etc)..

With that said however, I do believe that it'd be very beneficial for the marketplace shoppers if additional disclaimers were present when an item's availability relies on either licensing manners or remote connectivity.

Items that rely on external connectivity (outside of SL), could feature a little "📶This object requires service connectivity" text present somewhere with the product,

Items with availability directly tied to purchase licensing could have a more prominent text referring to the available pdf feature on marketplace listings..

The availability of items from the marketplace's something often really overlooked, unless it directly states (no copy) we're to expect that what's purchased is ours to keep indefinitely when this is clearly not the case. Let's hope this one isn't brushed under the "buyer beware" carpet and that the marketplace gets an update matching today's trends.

agreed, this kind of thing is just plain fraud from the seller and should be sanctioned by Linden Labs

It's not only a source of potential fraud. Items that communicate with external servers, especially without the knowledge of the user, are a data security risk, and LL should enforce a flag on the MP where items use these features.

I am, to put it mildly, not optimistic LL will take this one up, or even give it more than a moment's notice, as they have long taken the view that fraud -- which is what it is, if you've purchased an item in good faith, and it is disabled by the creator for any reason -- is an instance of "interpersonal disputes," and therefore not the company's responsibility. There are zero protections for consumers in SL, and this isn't going to change that.

That said, wouldn't it be nice if, just for once, LL signaled that it actually care about fair treatment for consumers?

I agree with the concept, but I think it could be difficult to implement. Any scripted product that relies on communication with an external site can be disabled unintentionally by problems with that site.

File a AR report for fraud. Not sure it will do anything but at least it will get the name to somone that might do something.