Question Massive price increase for reseller licenses?

[trialotto]

@manni,

This

Pretty interesting that the „Big Ones“ now also start thinking into new direction.

is not a "new direction" - it is not new.

Most license providers - back in the old days - were forced to be "big" : the traditional humbug of "silver", "gold" and "platinum" (or whatever label was attached) plans, with a (false) signal that "the more VIP a provider is, the better the deal".

Well, that deal was not that good : in order to make it a bit viable, (large) bundles had to be taken ......

....... and, as a result, smaller license providers started to combine efforts and strategies and funds.

In the long run, the smaller license providers merged into the "Big Ones" ..... if that is a label that we can assign.

At this moment, the wheel is re-invented : again, (large) bundles have to be used in order to make it viable ....... but the root cause of the problem is more and more related to price increases of individual licenses AND a desire of the (merged) "Big Ones" to make considerable profits (as they were able to realize, during many many years - these larger providers are essentially the same, owned by investors that let ROI prevail).

The thing is that this is a continuous cycle ...... the gain of one is the loss of others, so either the investors, the licensees or the licensors will lose the battle during periods of time (read: years), before the other parties are having a turn at getting their fair share in the loss.

The other thing is that this continuous cycle can only exist when alternatives are not present ...... but in the dynamic market of today, a viable alternative simply means "convergence" : a new party will enter, take some losses at first, then gain some (at the expense of other parties in the market) and then one or more of those other parties will be take over the new party or will be taken over by the new party ......... and again, with new alternatives being absent, the whole continuous cycle will reoccur again, over and over.

It is just life.

Kind regards .......

 

[trialotto]

Oh oh.... I saw this: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/cvc-in...edit-funds-to-refinance-webpros-debt/90128337.

To summarize; CVC Capital Partners is pursuing a major refinancing of WebPros through private credit funds, including a substantial new debt facility reportedly exceeding USD 1 billion. Officially, this move is framed as a restructuring of financial obligations — but it strongly suggests a shift toward shareholder extraction rather than long-term product investment.

For Plesk, this development raises serious strategic concerns.

When private equity owners refinance debt and include mechanisms such as dividend recapitalization and portability clauses, history shows a familiar pattern: increased pressure on subsidiary cash flow, aggressive monetization strategies, and reduced reinvestment in innovation and support. In practice, Plesk may be leveraged not to grow, but to service a mounting debt burden at the parent company.

This could manifest in several key areas:

• Higher licensing costs and stricter commercial terms, driven by financial targets rather than customer value
• Slower product development and reduced investment in engineering, security, and roadmap initiatives
• Increased uncertainty due to the portability clause, which enables an eventual sale of WebPros — potentially subjecting Plesk to yet another ownership or restructuring cycle

Although WebPros will likely maintain a public narrative of continuity and stability, the underlying refinancing strategy prioritizes capital extraction. That inherently risks shifting Plesk’s trajectory from a technology-driven platform to a financially exploited asset.

In short, Plesk may be entering a phase where financial engineering overrides innovation, placing customers, hosting providers, and long-term platform reliability at greater risk. Those who rely heavily on Plesk should be aware that strategic decisions may increasingly serve debt obligations — not the product or its user base.

I think the latter is already happening (for a few years) with those yearly price hikes...

@Deleted member,

Some of this is correct, some is not.

There will not be "risk" that exceeds the current level of "risk" - WebPros, Plesk, they are not more exploited than other tech businesses.

Tech industry is always supposed to be that unicorn and people (and investors) really believe that humbug, in the sense that each and every person (and investor) has FOMO.

The remarkable endresult?

FOMO leads to overvaluation, with overvaluation leading to mergers and take overs, with mergers and take overs leading to overpricing and overpayment, with overpayment leading to a necessity to earn the money back - all is about return on investment (ROI).

Essentially a Ponzi Scheme where the last investors has paid so much, that losses are unavoidable for those "last investors".

However, nobody will be inclined to admit they are part of those "last investors" - they still WANT to believe in that unicorn, even though they know already that an unicorn is a mythical creature from fables, not existing in real life.

So, they "dabble" a bit to avoid the unavoidable.

They do some price increases - the fast management types that learn from books (without understanding what they learn) never realize that this will speed up the unavoidable, they are only rewarded by stock options, higher salaries.......... rewarded, but never punished.

It is like putting a child in a candy store and telling them : well, you are in charge, I trust you, I will be back in a couple of days!

They do some refinancing - the fast investors want to have the money before the whole thing collapses.

It is like surrendering the invested amount and then wanting the money back when those fast investors need (not want, but need) the money back.


So yes, you are correct that there is - probably - some panic ........ due to large amounts of capital and debt for all those mergers and take overs.

However, that is life.


I would not consider that as a risk, since sooner or later there is the situation that a new party will take over WebPros.

The term "risk" is not covering the story, it - essentially - is a certainty that there will be a new owner and the same-old-same-old over and over again.


Nobody here, Plesk users and Plesk Team, wants to be a passenger in the bumpy ride caused by those investors.

We are simply passengers and we are too late to simply say : let's not pay the Plesk fees, but contribute an identical amount to a fund that enables us to take over WebPros and become the owner and decision maker.............. and do the right thing and make the right decisions.


I do not object to the term "risk", but it simply is not there.

WebPros and hence Plesk will sooner or later feel the burden of the large overhead of all those investors (wanting dividend and ROI) and of all those fast management types (wanting bonuses and big salaries) .........

...... but there will come a period that WebPros will be confronted with bad financial results (or even losses), which period will only end by a take over.

The latter take over may cause some changes, like lower license fees.

I hope so, but I really doubt it - as long as tech industry is considered to be "the vehicle to become the next billionaire", any tech business will be taken over with the sole intention to take advantage of it.

And yes, there is always the risk that idiotic finance types will make a mess of it - that is a given in life, they simply do.


Kind regards ........

 

[trialotto]

@Deleted member

There is no irony in this quote

The irony? These aggressive price strategies are actually accelerating competition. Alternative platforms — while not perfect — are rapidly evolving, fueled by frustration with WebPros’ approach. It’s only a matter of time before a mature, credible alternative emerges. And when that happens, the exodus will be irreversible. At that point, the investment firm will simply dismantle or sell off what remains.

since you are absolutely right.

In addition, parties wanting to enter the market (as investor or new business) get invested in (by investors) to speed up the process that will or should result in the new party being able to compete with existing parties (WebPros or other parties).

Yes, the investment firm will devalue its own investment.

No irony there, it is a simple fact.

However, the nonsense of those investors will continue ........ with the other parties that they have financed, including alternatives for Plesk.

No problem here, a good old credit crunch - or worse, a stock market crash - will work ;-)


By the way, I like this one :

Clients are not customers anymore — they’re revenue units strapped to an annual price escalator.

Kudos.


Kind regards....

 

[Doost]

If nothing else, they got balls to gaslight like that right to our faces. Either balls or raging contempt for their customers. "Well, we stopped just short of TRIPLING the price (for a short time), so you should be grateful. " How do you print that kind of straight-up B.S. and think it is good business strategy

Also, with all the price increases due to developer costs, one wonders how massive bugs like the recent Dovecot incident, and the Imunify360 data leak incident get through.
If there was any truth to increased costs from development leading to higher prices, I'd expect Plesk to be a thoroughly tested, tried and true product.

But as increasingly common across the tech landscape, I guess even higher costs don't get you out of being an unwilling beta tester these days.

 

[manni]

one of our licensing partners announced to cancel ALL Plesk licenses effective latest on July 1st 2026 because pricing of Plesk GmbH is not planable and due to the fact that some lawyers reached out to them after last Price Increase announcement…

 

[Hangover2]

I’m not surprised that the first lawsuits are already emerging. Depending on the country and legal framework, this development was to be expected.
All major hosting forums are currently full of discussions, as large providers are now being forced to raise their prices sharply. Even players like IONOS, which many believed could negotiate better terms, seem to be giving in - although their prices are still lower than those of most resellers. Customers, however, often have only 30 days to either migrate or accept the new pricing.

Some customers are now taking a very close look at their contracts to see whether they can challenge them legally.

The circumstances described - strong, repeated price increases by Plesk (WebPros), combined with high switching barriers - may in some jurisdictions raise questions about potential price abuse or even “usury.” In Germany, for example, §138 of the Civil Code (BGB) defines usury when one party exploits another’s constrained situation or inexperience to obtain a consideration that is in a striking disproportion to their own performance.

The Plesk price increases show similar warning signs: steep annual hikes, lock-in effects, market dominance, and little added value to justify the higher price. Although no leading German court ruling has yet classified software license increases as usury, price adjustment clauses in general terms (AGB) or abuse of market dominance under the GWB (competition law) could be legally challenged.

As @manni mentioned, the first resellers affected will likely be those based in countries where such price increases can be fought legally, or those whose customer contracts do not permit such adjustments. Hetzner clearly saw this coming and exited early. I fear that more resellers will follow to avoid getting caught in the crossfire.

(Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. It reflects personal observation and public discussion.)

 

[trialotto]

@Hangover2

It is good to read that you have taken the effort to write down this part

Some customers are now taking a very close look at their contracts to see whether they can challenge them legally.

The circumstances described - strong, repeated price increases by Plesk (WebPros), combined with high switching barriers - may in some jurisdictions raise questions about potential price abuse or even “usury.” In Germany, for example, §138 of the Civil Code (BGB) defines usury when one party exploits another’s constrained situation or inexperience to obtain a consideration that is in a striking disproportion to their own performance.

The Plesk price increases show similar warning signs: steep annual hikes, lock-in effects, market dominance, and little added value to justify the higher price. Although no leading German court ruling has yet classified software license increases as usury, price adjustment clauses in general terms (AGB) or abuse of market dominance under the GWB (competition law) could be legally challenged.

since that essentially provides a good explanation (in rough outlines) of which kind of legal issue might be present.


Nevertheless, there is a notable difference between a legal issue and a legal case.

A legal issue is to be defined (loosely) as "something" that allegedly or factually is not in line with applicable law.

A legal case is to be defined (more exactly) as a legal issue that will hold up in court or legal proceedings.


In addition, the distinction between legal issues and legal cases (or the distance between the definitions thereof) is not predefined and fixed.

For instance, German law is quite strict and the "distance" between legal issues and legal cases is relatively "small" - this is good!

For instance, US law is quite "flexible" and depending on many factors - this is not so good!


The aformentioned "distinction" or "distance" determines the probability of success when going to court or when starting legal proceedings of any kind.

A "small" distance is often intended to prevent that "wrongfully accused do not get convicted".

This is - more or less - the European model, where hard (legal) evidence must be provided until alleged facts are deemed to be proven facts.

As a result, there is a smaller probability of success in European courts when starting legal proceedings.

On the other hand, if hard (legal) evidence is present, then conviction is unavoidable in the European model.


In Germany law is very strict, so one would expect that the presence of hard (legal) evidence would help establish "abuse" or "usury".

That is not automatically the case, since there are two other factors determining the success rate :

1 - costs of legal proceedings : German law is quite formal, so the costs of legal proceedings are relatively high (read: too high)

2 - applicable law : specific national law might not apply, if superseded by international or other national law


The complicating factors here can be described with the following questions :

3 - what is Plesk and where is the statutory residence of Plesk?

4 - where are the customers, what is the legal form of their company and what is their statutory residence?

5 - if statutory residence of Plesk and her customer do not coincide, which (national) law applies?

6 - if statutory residence of Plesk and her customer do not coincide, which court is competent?

For instance, for a German Plesk customer, it can be the case that Swiss court is competent, but that the competent Swiss court has to rule with German law.

Although the aforementiond complicating factors can make any kind of legal proceedings quite complex, they are barely relevant, since a good and often very expensive legal team should be able to resolve the issues arising from those complicating factors.


However, the even more important complicating factors described by the following questions

7 - is Plesk accountable for the lack of alternatives?

8 - is there a clausule in the agreements that Plesk cannot raise prices?

9 - is there national or international law that Plesk cannot raise prices?

can NOT be resolved a good and very expensive legal team, since the formal answer to all of the latter questions is simply "NO".

That is not my personal answer, it is the answer that you can expect from all (or most) lawyers and judges.


In summary and stated very bluntly, there might be a legal issue, but not a legal case : one can take Plesk to court and spend lots of money to lose the case.

The Civil Code will often not work in practice ......... and, in some cases, is not even applicable to these kinds of legal issues.


The last paragraph is bad news that should be followed by good news, right?

The good news is that we live in the European Union.

In essence, we have supranational law (EU law) that is allowing the EU to recommend binding actions to and even impose fines upon companies.

Some of the legal grounds to recommend binding actions or to impose fines is ........ exactly, abuse of market power or market dominance.

Consider the fines imposed upon Facebook and Google and then you know exactly what I am talking about.


In summary, it can never do harm to have a good legal team search for caveats in the agreements with Plesk, but it is highly recommend to have that legal team compose a "legal complaint of market abuse" that can be submitted to the European Union.

In essence, if you do want to achieve a specific goal, do not become a Don Quichote, but take the appropriate action.

Yes, I am pretty sure that small battles can be won with legal proceedings that are not based upon "abuse" or "usury", but one will not win the war.

Why does one not win the war? All kinds of overhead costs, including legal costs, will be translated to higher fees ..... so, to combat higher fees, one should be expecting high costs for all parties involved, with only Plesk being able to translate to costs into higher license fees.

No, I am not sure that the European Union will take action, but I am sure that the war will be won if and when the European Union will take action.

Why does one win the war if the European Union imposes fines or takes other kinds of action? One does not have the legal costs and the simple fact that the European Union takes action also implies the fact that Plesk cannot easily or cannot (not at all) raise the prices in the near future.


All of the above is just some food for thought, it is not a statement of facts or a personal opinion.

The factual reality is too complex for Plesk forum.

My personal opinion is simply that I would rather see that price increases are only present if the evolution of Plesk is in line with those price increases.

My personal reason to give some food for thougth is simply related to the fact that many lawyers give false hope, so they can charge you a lot of money.

That is it .......... nothing more or less.


Kind regards....

 

[manni]

Two Plesk partners informed us (independently) this week that they have to cancel the contracts with us due to push from Plesk, especially because of price increase:

• Partner 1 sells us the licenses in combination with virtual infrastructure in a bundle, where the monthly rate was extreme low until today (below 10EUR) for a Web Host edition.
• Partner 2 sells us the licenses for self-operated infrastructure, the price increase is not that high.
• Both partners informed, that there is more or less no difference anymore in licenses for virtual infrastructure VS dedicated hardware.

We have already cancelled most Plesk contracts in the last months, nevertheless we still operate some infrastructure where it is needed.

Now the more interesting part: We have old contracts with our clients where we sell Plesk licenses and now this requires us to push up the price once more (and again 20% up, which is higher than ANY other software vendor we have), and one client now reacted with a lawyer. Of course, they have to fight against us, because we are the selling partner.

Here their statement: Economic dependence with the argumentation, that...

1. our Server setups are tailored to Plesk
2. They have trained their employees trained to use it
3. Their customers are familiar with its interface
4. They use Integrations for automated processes

with the final statement, that️ switching to an alternative product (on the same OS level) causes high costs, risks, time pressure, and potential contract violations.
They state that this is considered a methodical lock-in, which is particularly prone to abuse under EU law. They now charge me/us in Austria in regards to § 5 Abs 1 Z 2 Cartel Act: Abuse of dependent company

So the funny (and expensive) time will now start for us and we even think, to shutdown the business, as this whole situation will be far to expensive...

 

[Hangover2]

And this is unfortunately only the beginning. Plesk is deliberately letting its partners walk straight into the trap.
Sadly, the large providers like IONOS don’t have the guts to go after the root of the problem.
Once again, it’s the small and mid-sized businesses that have to bear the consequences – as always.
Plesk should be ashamed. There is nothing more I can say about it.

I now warn everyone not to rely on Plesk. I truly feel sorry for all the companies and end customers who are now getting crushed because greedy hedge-fund locusts can’t get enough of the pie.

My last hope is the EU, which could at least put an end to this behavior through hefty fines, so that this profiteering doesn’t end up in the pockets of antisocial investors. Hope, as we know, dies last.

 

[Hangover2]

@manni As you did mention Austria, you can contact your national authority:

Federal Competition Authority (BWB) – Austria

https://www.bwb.gv.at/kartelle_marktmachtmissbrauch/whistleblower_werden

The BWB cooperates closely with the EU. If the case affects multiple countries (as with international software providers), they often pass it directly to the EU.

In your case, the following issues are maybe relevant:

• Abuse of economic dependence
• Excessive and repeated price increases without justification
• Lock-in strategies and barriers to switching
• Use of a dominant market position to pressure partners
• Coercing partners to raise prices or terminate contracts

The European Commission takes these issues seriously.

For all the others also affected by the current pricing situation: You can also go straight to the EU Competition Authority (Antitrust and Cartels). Companies and individuals can file antitrust or abuse-of-dominance complaints there – including against software vendors like Plesk if there is suspicion of market abuse, lock-in strategies, unfair contract terms, or abusive price increases.

Official EU Competition Complaint

You can submit a competition complaint here: EU Competition Complaint Form:

https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/contact-us/antitrust-complaints_en

The process is free and confidential. Anonymous submissions are possible, but named complaints are taken more seriously.

(Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. It reflects personal observation and public discussion.)

 

[trialotto]

@Hangover2

This statement

Sadly, the large providers like IONOS don’t have the guts to go after the root of the problem.

is suggesting that there is a root of the problem - but there is not.

At least, there is not in a legal sense.

There is, despite specific parts of law that TRY to prevent abuse of (dominant) market position, not much to gain with law when a party actually uses and abuses a (dominant) market position.

The following applies :

- price increases, actually related to abuse of market position, are not the root cause of the problem,
- applicable law to prevent abuse of market position is not the root cause of the problem.

The root cause of the problem can only be identified as

- lack of authority of lower courts with respect to cases concerning abuse of (dominant) market position,
- abundance of money with parties that have a (dominant) market position.

There is no gain to achieve by spending (hundred) thousands of euros in a case that cannot be won in legal proceedings.

Parties like IONOS know that, it is not a matter of "guts".

It simply is not economically viable.

Consider yourself getting a speeding ticket of 500 euro, whilst legal proceedings will cost you 1000 euro or more to combat that ticket in court.

It does not make sense to combat that speeding ticket ........ you simply pay the speeding ticket.

Kind regards...

 

[Hangover2]

@trialotto

I respectfully disagree with your assessment for several reasons.

a) Abuse of market power is a legal matter under EU law

It is not correct to say there is “no root problem in a legal sense.” The EU has repeatedly acted against dominant vendors for practices such as excessive pricing, lock-in strategies, and unfair contractual conditions. Examples include Google, Microsoft, Intel, Amazon and others. So there is a clear legal framework, and it is actively enforced.

b) Large providers do challenge unfair behavior

It is not simply a question of “guts” or lack of economic incentive. Large hosting providers regularly participate in joint complaints, industry coalitions, and sector-wide competition cases. These companies have legal capacity and strategic reasons to address harmful vendor practices when their business model is affected.

c) The cost–benefit analogy does not apply

Comparing this to “paying a 500-euro speeding ticket instead of going to court” is too simplistic. Large providers operate at a scale where:

• vendor lock-in creates long-term strategic risk
• dependency on a single software vendor can threaten entire product lines
• unjustified price increases have a multiplied business impact

For them, taking legal or regulatory action is not about pride, but long-term market stability. But ok, if IONOS is planning his way out of the situation with a new hosting solution already, they maybe go the same way as Hetzner or other players before and this was the last hard pill to swallow for them. If you ask me, this could be the case here.

d) Economic dependence and lock-in are legally recognised issues

EU competition law explicitly covers:

• abuse of economic dependence
• excessive or unjustified pricing
• unfair commercial practices
• restrictions on switching
• exploitation of dominant market positions

These are not theoretical constructs; they are well-defined legal categories.

d) Collective action does make a difference

If only one company complains, the effect is limited. If many affected providers report the same pattern, regulators take notice. That is exactly why mechanisms for joint complaints and coordinated filings exist as individual companies cannot fight alone.

 

[trialotto]

@manni

This part of your post

and one client now reacted with a lawyer. Of course, they have to fight against us, because we are the selling partner.

is rather peculiar, given the facts that

1 - your client(s) cannot "fight" against you : there are no legal grounds to do so,

2 - you obviously have the wrong clients : they fight with you without having legal grounds to do so!


@manni, you should be able to win any legal proceedings without any issue - let me explain.


This "charge"

They now charge me/us in Austria in regards to § 5 Abs 1 Z 2 Cartel Act: Abuse of dependent company

is a "humbug" charge : you are not the abuser and your client is not a dependent company.

Stated differently, your client

- has a legal issue that will not hold up in court, (and)
- starts legal proceedings against the wrong company,

and, by law, you can respond with a claim against the company that wrongfully starts legal proceedings.


Their statement

Here their statement: Economic dependence with the argumentation, that...

1. our Server setups are tailored to Plesk
2. They have trained their employees trained to use it
3. Their customers are familiar with its interface
4. They use Integrations for automated processes

with the final statement, that️ switching to an alternative product (on the same OS level) causes high costs, risks, time pressure, and potential contract violations.

is absolute humbug, for many reasons.

The primary reason is legal by nature : your client has acted "autonomously" in the sense that your client

- has willingly and knowingly created any dependence (if present) at its sole discretion,
- has willingly and knowingly failed to reduce the consequences of any dependence (if present) by adopting "backup alternatives" to reduce dependency,
- has willingly and knowingly taken the risks of dependency (if present) and the risks of the absence of "backup alternatives"

The secondary reason is economical by nature : any economical risk associated with a company is solely attributable to that company - that is the nature of "doing business" and any judge will not hold another company responsible for (normal) economical risks.

The primary and secondary reason will not give any judge a legal framework to rule that your company is liable.

However, each and every judge will have (several) reasons to rule AGAINST the company that starts legal proceedings against your company : I will not explain in detail, but the legal essence is that one cannot simply "complain" after acting in accordance with agreements for years and also that one cannot "abuse" law to start legal proceedings for matters that are related to (normal) economical risks that are associated with doing business.


This statement

So the funny (and expensive) time will now start for us and we even think, to shutdown the business, as this whole situation will be far to expensive...

might not seem relevant, but it actually is in a legal sense.

If your client starts legal proceedings without having any legal grounds to do so, then you are confronted with costs that you do not need to make.

These costs are the costs of legal proceedings and ALL other costs or damages that result of that legal proceedings.

So, if the legal costs become so high that you will have to shutdown your company, then the client starting legal proceedings will become liable for literally ALL damages incurred by you and your company : from legal costs to all missed future revenues.

It is indeed funny ...... but if you play your cards right, then your client will lose the legal case ........ and you can win lots of money.

You should not be bothered about that - your client should not be that silly to start legal proceedings without having any legal grounds to do so.


In short, your client is full of humbug.

Cordially invite them to go to court and warn them explicitly in advance that all costs and damages incurred by your company will be claimed upon that client.

Then you only need to keep your fingers crossed and hope that they have good lawyers that assess the risks properly.

However, lawyers cannot calculate, so "hope" might not be the right word.

The right word is that you have NOTHING TO FEAR from your idiotic client.


Kind regards......

PS Keep track of all hours that you make in relation to the case that your client thinks he has. ALL HOURS. These hours represent a considerable value that you can claim from your client in the light of damages incurred by wrongful legal proceedings initiated by your client.

 

[trialotto]

@Hangover2

I respectfully disagree with your assessment for several reasons.

a) Abuse of market power is a legal matter under EU law

The first reason simply illustrates the problem that I already identified : lower courts lack authority.

In essence and in daily practice, only EU institutes can enforce something - not to the full extent of applicable law, but "something".

So, not clear to me what your point is, since your argument simply confirms one of the problems that I have identified.

b) Large providers do challenge unfair behavior

It is not simply a question of “guts” or lack of economic incentive. Large hosting providers regularly participate in joint complaints, industry coalitions, and sector-wide competition cases. These companies have legal capacity and strategic reasons to address harmful vendor practices when their business model is affected.

True, but these legal cases are not plenty (read: no large numbers of cases) and they are hardly effective.

c) The cost–benefit analogy does not apply

It does, it even has two interpretations.

The abused party is the "poor party" that cannot spend a lot of money on legal cases that cannot be won from a "rich party".

The "rich party" does not mind the legal costs and is not even bothered about convictions - when there is plenty of money, money is not an issue.

This is also why EU law fails : Google, Amazon, etc do not actually mind to spend billions in fines and legal costs.

Those parties simply try to mitigate the costs in the absolute knowledge that they will have to pay them AND in the knowledge that there is a small chance that the fines (or other legal actions) will not hold up in court.

Those parties simply gamble in the hope that there will come a court ruling that makes any future fines (or legal actions) impossible!

The European Union is really confronted with that problem : the EU (the poor party here) know that they do not have the people and the financial resources to play the long game, whilst those parties like Google, Amazon, etc (the rich parties here) will continue until they get what they want, being a court ruling that will prevent any future fines.

Stated differently, those parties spend hundreds of millions of each year to prevent billions of fines for each and every future year.

Oh, those parties even spend millions in campaign donations to help elect a president that can help them with the long term goal.

It is ALL about cost-benefit analysis, for all parties involved!

Sure, my "speeding ticket" example is not complete, it is just an illustration of how it works for SOME parties ........ and I should have stated that MOST parties will simply stick to the speed limit in order to prevent future speeding tickets.

d) Economic dependence and lock-in are legally recognised issues

Absolutely, no discussion about that!

However, in daily practice, the legal side of this matter is evolving towards a legal framework that can actually do something about "abuse".

At this moment, the legal framework is not sufficient or not adequate - one could even argue "failing miserably".

A similar situation occurred with the issue of "insider trading" (on financial markets) - there was a legal framework that was not adequate and in the long run, the "legal side" was becoming more and more obsolete, due to financial markets evolving faster than any legal expert could.

In my humble opinion, "market abuse" is more legally viable in the sense that it is older and better argumented than "insider trading".

I certainly have hope that there will be a convergence towards a legal framework that can actually work in daily practice.

d) Collective action does make a difference

If only one company complains, the effect is limited. If many affected providers report the same pattern, regulators take notice. That is exactly why mechanisms for joint complaints and coordinated filings exist as individual companies cannot fight alone.

Absolutely, no discussion here.

Nevertheless, one should also see the pitfall in this argument.

The argument itself is right, but the reasons that make it right are completely wrong.

In fact, we can only take combined action by filing multiple complaints with regulatory bodies, since "market abuse" is the domain of EU law and the EU.

This would be entirely different if there would be a legal framework that would make the EU regulatory bodies obsolete.

Stated differently, if each and every company would have a viable legal framework allowing to challenge the "market abusers" in court, then those "market abusers" would stop quite fast : one big case (against the EU) is less expensive than 10-thousands of cases (against individual companies).

Expensive is defined here as "costs in terms of money" and, more importantly, as "costs in terms of losing".

It is a numbers game : one big case you can win or lose once, 10-thousands of (individual) cases can be won or lost individually.

The nice thing about law is that if one case (of 10-thousands of cases) is lots by the "market abuser", then all 10-thousands cases are lost : the one case has to be applied to ALL other cases.

So, you might understand why the "long term game" of parties like Google, Amazon etc. is also focused on spending money on cases with the EU.

In fact, it is "occupational therapy" - the EU is kept busy, hence reducing the risk that the legal evolution brings us towards the level that 10-thousands of individual cases have to be dealt with by parties like Google, Amazon, etc.

Those parties really fear the moment when that level will occur and 10-thousands of cases have to be won, each and every one!

In short, yes, collective action makes a difference in terms of (huge numbers) of complaints with the EU ......... and certainly a BIG DIFFERENCE when legal evolution brings to the level where we can use a solid legal framework to start (individual) legal proceedings agains market abusers.


Again, I am not entirely sure why you (respectfully) disagree.

It seems to me that we are on the same page.


Kind regards....

 

[Hangover2]

@trialotto

Thank you for the detailed reply, but I believe we are discussing two different things.

My original points were:

1. Abuse of market power is legally actionable in the EU.
2. Large providers can and sometimes do challenge harmful vendor behavior.
3. Filing complaints—especially collective ones—does trigger investigations.
4. Economic dependence and lock-in are recognized legal concepts.

None of these statements depend on whether:

• national courts have limited authority,
• multinationals have more money than regulators, or
• some enforcement cases take many years.

These are broader structural issues, but they do not invalidate the existing legal mechanisms.

The core facts remain:

• The EU has enforced competition law many times, including against dominant tech companies.
• Competition enforcement does not rely on SMEs funding court battles; it relies on complaints that trigger investigations.
• Collective filings by affected companies are effective and are specifically encouraged by regulators.
• A company like Plesk can absolutely be scrutinized under EU law if enough providers report a pattern.

So while I agree that the system is not perfect, it does not follow that taking action is pointless or that enforcement cannot work in practice. My disagreement was about the conclusion, not about the imperfections of the legal landscape.

 

[manni]

After the discussion with a specialist, we got the first information, that the reseller is definitly the contract partner, as he/she buys the license and re-sells it. The contract partner is the one, who can be claimed for everything, and then has to fight against the selling partner.

If the customer would have a contract with Plesk, and we would only be the charging ("money transfer") point, it would be a different, much more complex, situation.

 

[trialotto]

@manni,

This statement

After the discussion with a specialist, we got the first information, that the reseller is definitly the contract partner, as he/she buys the license and re-sells it. The contract partner is the one, who can be claimed for everything, and then has to fight against the selling partner.

indicates that your "specialist" has either been given the wrong information or is not a "specialist".


The relevant legal facts here are that

a) damages can be claimed with any counterparty, in this case a supplier who is a reseller of some product,

b) market abuse cannot be claimed with any reseller, since a reseller is not the party who is abusing market dominance,

c) any company that is a reseller of products / services that are supplied by a market abuser can file a claim with that market abuser, for many legal reasons,

d) your client cannot file a claim with your company based on the alleged fact of market abuse, since your company is not the market abuser,

e) your client is, when starting legal proceedings on the ground of market abuse, obliged by law to sue the market abuser,

f) your client is, when starting legal proceedings related to products / services, in most cases obliged to sue the legal owner of those products / services,

g) your client is fully liable for all damages incurred by your company, if and when it takes your company to court on grounds that will not hold in court.


It is as simple as that.

In most situations, an exhaustive summary of legal facts and consequences of actions will be sufficient to stop your client suing your company.

If your "specialist" does not understand that, then you are destined to be the passenger of a very bumpy and expensive ride - for no reason at all.


I can only recommend to get a second opinion and a third opinion - consult other lawyers!


Kind regards.....

 

[trialotto]

@Hangover2,

In your last post, you challenged some of the statements that I made, for reasons not entirely clear.

The concluding statement was

So while I agree that the system is not perfect, it does not follow that taking action is pointless or that enforcement cannot work in practice. My disagreement was about the conclusion, not about the imperfections of the legal landscape.

and I simply do not grasp how you

a) can disagree with a conclusion from my side, if I do not intend to conclude at all, (and)

b) cannot understand my motivation to post on this particular topic.


Let me explain a bit.

Imperfections in the legal landscape do matter, since these imperfections determine what actually happens and what the legal outcome will be.


Consider yourself being a CEO of a company with annual profit of 50 billion and also faced with a threat of being fined 2 billion for market abuse.

That CEO would simply shrug his shoulders and say "paying 2 billion once to get 50 billion of profit each year ...... it is not difficult math!"

That CEO would be more practical and more savvy and investigate the legal landscape and the legal consequences of the fine.

That CEO would spend 150 million (or more) to create legal opposition, combat the legal grounds of the 2 billion fine, all in the knowledge that imperfections in the legal landscape would at least give you 3 to 5 years before the fine will become final and inevitable.

In the case that the legal opposition will result in a fine that is - for instance - 500 million lower, the costs of legal opposition are an investment with return.

That CEO sees legal opposition as an investment with a return!

That CEO would also realize that legal opposition is allowing the company to realize 50 billion profit per year DURING 3 to 5 years of legal opposition, whilst the fine of 2 billion will not change in worst case scenario and will be mitigated or even null in best case scenario.

That CEO really will understand that he does not oppose the fine itself, but simply uses the legal landscape to turn a punishable action with a punishment into a business model itself : an investment with a return on investment.


Why can a punishable action (market abuse) with a punishment (fine) become a business model?

Well, the fine is too low.

That is the legal landscape offered by the European Union and the EU law concerning market abuse : fines are too low.

Sure, considerable numbers of complaints can help, lots of investigations by EU authorities can help ...... but they will not, if "punishment" is not scaring away the market abusers.


So, all of the above is simply (and again) an explanation of why one should take the role of the EU in combatting market abuse a bit lightly.

With all the good intentions of the world, the EU cannot even make a dent.


Nevertheless, I do not disagree with you : it can never do harm to file complaints, lots of them.

It simply allows the EU to take action or improve action or, even more important, to determine where the legal framework has to change.


So, I do not understand why you disagree with me ...... if I agree with you?


That is essentially also a big problem here, on this forum.

The main language is English, but it seems to be the case that everybody has its own variant of English, making communication a bit biased.


Now, concerning my motivation to post on this topic and this forum in general.

It is NOT my life mission to attempt to convince people of my views and opinions.

It is NOT the intention to confront people with facts that they tend to ignore or simply want to ignore.


My motivation simply follows from my personal intention to either prevent a lopsided discussion or to prevent unnecessary misfortune or disgruntlement.

Consider the disgruntled client of @manni ........ who is disgruntled by the actions of the shareholders of Plesk.

Everybody seems to forget that Plesk, Plesk Team, Plesk customers and so on do NOT need or want price increases and these discussions.

Only the shareholders behind Plesk want to have a "decent return on investment", as they would call it - hence, the price increases.

Only the shareholders behind Plesk will try to increase prices, as long as they can get away with it - complaints and fines will not stop that.

So, if price increases are to be expected each and every year, why still post on this matter?

Well, if there are only different opinions concerning this matter, then there is no reason for me to post.

However, individual cases like that of @manni do create a reason to post : the danger that one Plesk customer is being confronted by an idiotic disgruntled client is sufficient reason to post!

I am not only creating a post to guide @manni with some simple legal facts and some assurance that he has nothing to fear.........

........ but I am also creating a post in the hope that the disgruntled customer of @manni is an active Plesk forum user who understands from my posts that his issue is (a) not a viable legal court case and (b) certainly not a court case where the company of @manni is the liable counterparty.


@Hangover2, I do appreciate your posts, I absolutely do.

However, you should be aware of the fact that reality is a bit different than theory.

We can discuss the differences between factual and theoretical reality ..... and we already do in a pleasant way.

However, as opposed to exchanging views and opinions, it would and should be of greater importance TO HELP OTHER FORUM USERS.

Helping them simply by stating and EXPLAINING that they have nothing to fear from their customers, if those customers threaten to go to court.

That is practical reality in the presence of (incomplete) legal frameworks concerning market abuse : the court cases will not stick.


@manni, you should really understand that some people will never be able to grasp the practical reality of legal proceedings.

If your disgruntled client actually goes to court (the idiot!), then you should

1 - instantly send invoices with prices equal to the last price that your client did not object to,
2 - go ahead and insist that the legal proceedings will continue : your disgruntled client does not have legal grounds for suing you, due to fact 1,
3 - go ahead and insist that the legal proceedings will continue : in the end, you will have a verdict of a judge that you can increase prices retroactively,

and that is that : both the legal landscape and its flaws and the idiotic actions of your disgruntled client will work against him.

Needless to say, that verdict will also entail that you are not responsible for market abuse with respect to items your company is reselling and that verdict will also give you the legal fundament to impose price increases upon other clients (if you wish to impose them).

So, actually, your disgruntled client could actually do you a favor - hence the consistent use of the word "idiotic".

There should not be any fear of what such a "client" wants to do - just let the client do what he wants and play the game right.


Kind regards.....

 

[Hangover2]

@trialotto

I think there is still some misunderstanding between what you are saying and what I am saying, so let me try to separate agreement and disagreement more clearly.

Where I agree with you​

• Yes, the legal and regulatory framework around market abuse is imperfect and often slow.
• Yes, big players with billions in profit can “price in” fines and treat legal opposition as part of their business model.
• Yes, for an individual SME it is usually neither realistic nor sensible to fight a tech giant directly in court.
• Yes, in the concrete case of @manni, the reseller is very likely not the legally liable party for Plesk’s market conduct, and the customer’s lawsuit threat looks weak.

On these points, we are not in disagreement.

Where I still disagree​

Where I do disagree is with statements like:

“With all the good intentions of the world, the EU cannot even make a dent.”

Even if fines are too low in your view, and even if large companies treat them as a cost of doing business, EU competition enforcement has had real and measurable effects on behaviour, product design, and market access over time. That is more than “no dent”.

I also disagree with the practical implication that follows from your description of the “legal landscape”: namely, that filing complaints or using the instruments that do exist is almost meaningless in practice. Even in your own post you acknowledge that:

• complaints help the EU understand where the framework must change, and
• complaints can trigger investigations and action.

That is exactly the point I am making: the fact that the system is imperfect does not mean it is pointless to use it.

On “conclusions” and motives​

You wrote that you did not “intend to conclude at all”. But sentences such as:

• “the EU cannot even make a dent”, and
• “fines are too low, so market abuse becomes a business model”

are conclusions, at least as they are read in a practical context by people who are asking: “Should I complain? Should I push back? Do I have any tools at all?”

My disagreement is not with your motivation – I understand you want to reassure @manni and others that they are unlikely to lose in court because of Plesk’s behaviour. I disagree with the overall message that the EU’s role should be taken “lightly” and that market-abuse law is almost useless in practice.

Bringing it back to the practical level​

For me, both perspectives can coexist:

On the one hand:

• Resellers like @manni should not panic about customers threatening lawsuits;
• contracts and pass-through pricing can and should be structured more clearly for the future.

On the other hand:

• if enough affected providers and partners file well-founded complaints,
• regulators can and do react,
• and over time this is exactly how legal frameworks and enforcement get adjusted.

That is why I keep insisting that “imperfect system” and “pointless to act” are not the same thing.

 

[mow]

1 - instantly send invoices with prices equal to the last price that your client did not object to,

... while explicitly stating that you are invoicing the undisputed part of the current price, but still uphold claim to the rest.
If the client already does continue to pay the old price, just send a payment reminder instead.