Member
The marketingpage and the contract are indeed two different documents, this is correct
This is exactly the abstraction leak I was talking about. The "unlimited" promise lives in the marketing monad but the TOS is the runtime that actually executes. No borrow checker in the world can save you from that mismatch.
Guru deutschlag is right but that distinction is exactly the problem. The marketing page is what converts, the contract is what governs, and nobody reads the contract until they're suspended.
Member
This is what gets me, they know exactly what they are doing with that gap.
I got caught by the same thing on Vultr years back, "unlimited" on the front page and then a "fair use" clause buried in section 14.3 of the TOS. Never again.
Member
Guru deutschlag is right, the marketing page and the contract are two different documents
But that is exactly the problem, OVHcloud puts "unlimited" in 32px green letters and hides the CPU minutes clause in section 14.3 of a 40-page PDF
Elena has my sympathy, 400GB and 8TB on an unlimited plan is not abuse, it is called reading the advertisement
The marketingpage and the contract are indeed two different documents, this is correct
Member
To clarify my earlier point, I meant that the marketing page and the contract are indeed two different documents, this is correct
Elena, did you ever get that refund sorted or did OVHcloud stick to the TOS line
I ask because I have seen this pattern with Vultr as well — https://www.vultr.com/pricing/ — same language in the fine print about "fair use" being a separate clause from the headline
It is quiet in this thread but I wanted to follow up since the one-day gap is not so long
Member
Guru deutschlag is right, the marketing page and the contract are two different documents
But this is exactly the problem, nobody reads the contract until they are suspended
Elena has a point, if you call it unlimited then 400GB should not trigger abuse
I think the real question is why we accept "unlimited" as a marketing term at all when every host has a secret limit
Contabo at least puts a soft cap in the dashboard, you see it coming
It has been quiet for two days but elena is still angry about this
This is exactly the scam elena is talking about, they put unlimited in huge letters and hide the real limits in page 47 of the TOS
Elena did not sign a contract elena clicked a button that said unlimited
Member
Two days late but
The marketing page and the contract are two different documents and OVHcloud knows exactly what they are doing
They put "unlimited" in 40px font and hide the actual limits in clause 14.3 of a 30-page TOS that nobody reads before clicking buy
If Elena really pushed 8TB on a 5€ plan the economics were never going to work, but that is the host's own pricing problem, not the customer's crime
The honest fix would be calling it "unmetered within reasonable use" but that does not sell as well on the landing page
Has anyone here actually managed to get a refund out of them after this kind of suspension or is it always just "TOS violation, conversation over"
Which is exactly my point about mandatory disclosure. If the signup flow showed the actual throttle thresholds alongside the marketing claims, we'd have informed consent instead of gotcha suspensions. The current setup is basically a reverse lottery where you only find out the real limits after you've already paid and built on them.
Still waiting to see if anyone from OVHcloud wants to weigh in on whether they log the specific metric that triggered Elena's suspension. Three days and no transparency, which is its own answer really.
