Consumer Law, Warranties Bad Web Host

[JusticeSeekr]

Jurisdiction

California

Hello. Is there a law within the FTC, UCC, or California Code that specifies how long a Web Hosting Provider is required to keep a customers data in their remote server in the event of a missed annual payment? The service included backup of data on their remote servers. Are they required by law to maintain the data for 30, 45, or 60 days or can they delete it whenever they want (2 days-2 weeks) as long as it's in their terms of service? Is there a legal standard here? If so, please specify the specific code. Thank you.

 

[mightymoose]

This is something that would be addressed in your contract or the terms of service.
I'm not aware of any law that would apply.

 

[zddoodah]

Is there a law within the FTC, UCC, or California Code that specifies how long a Web Hosting Provider is required to keep a customers data in their remote server in the event of a missed annual payment?

No.

The service included backup of data on their remote servers. Are they required by law to maintain the data for 30, 45, or 60 days or can they delete it whenever they want (2 days-2 weeks) as long as it's in their terms of service? Is there a legal standard here?

The "legal standard" is whatever is provided in the contract between the parties involved.

 

[adjusterjack]

can they delete it whenever they want (2 days-2 weeks) as long as it's in their terms of service?

Yes.

If you don't like the consequences of missing a payment, then don't miss a payment.

 

[JusticeSeekr]

Yes.

If you don't like the consequences of missing a payment, then don't miss a payment.

There are often extenuating circumstances that may cause individuals, corporations, and even governments to default on a due payment. And, since you are one in a million that's never been in that predicament, "bully for you!" The point is to determine the 'legality' of the action taken by the web host, not to scrutinize the Delinquency/Default itself.

 

[adjusterjack]

There are often extenuating circumstances that may cause individuals, corporations, and even governments to default on a due payment.

That's true. Everybody has a reason for stiffing a creditor.

But those "extenuating circumstances" in no way, shape or form, reduce or eliminate the creditors contractual and/or statutory remedies for the breach.

And, since you are one in a million that's never been in that predicament, "bully for you!"

I must have been sleep-writing because I sure don't remember ever writing that I've never been in that predicament and I see no evidence of having written it.

I actually have been in the predicament where I have occasionally missed a payment. I didn't like the consequences. So I am imparting to you the wisdom gained from my experiences.

The point is to determine the 'legality' of the action taken by the web host,

Done that.

 

[JusticeSeekr]

That's true. Everybody has a reason for stiffing a creditor.

But those "extenuating circumstances" in no way, shape or form, reduce or eliminate the creditors contractual and/or statutory remedies for the breach.



I must have been sleep-writing because I sure don't remember ever writing that I've never been in that predicament and I see no evidence of having written it.

I actually have been in the predicament where I have occasionally missed a payment. I didn't like the consequences. So I am imparting to you the wisdom gained from my experiences.



Done that.

If stiffing creditors is what you call it than speak for yourself. Now we have a little insight into YOUR character. The web host I am referring to is NOT a creditor. All services are "prepaid" in advance. I have no problem with the web host deactivating service for missing the payment when due. I was only questioning whether they had the legal right to delete a client's data if they paid for backup service in the previous billing cycle. And that question was answered before you threw your hat in the ring. Thank you anyway.

 

[adjusterjack]

You're welcome.