This whole practice, among other things, is so shitty that I decided to not get a Switch 2, having had every Nintendo console since the NES.

But it's important to make the distinction between disabling and bricking. It may seem like a technicality, but that's the kind of thing that'll get a lawsuit dismissed. Not that I have any faith in that process anyway.

Been seeing some of that as well, so I looked it up myself. The actual text of the EULA states:

"You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.”

That's a brick. They haven't actually done it to anyone yet, but they've reserved their rights.

Yeah "bricked" means it's as useful as a brick. If this is accurate, you can still use all the offline features, which is less bad than it's previously been described.

They are denying you access to the service rather than your hardware. I prefer how Nintendo goes about it (locking hacked device) compared to Valve or Sony where your entire game library gets locked. As someone with a banned Switch I think that’s fair, I can pirate things on it anyway. Nobody said piracy has to be easy and I enjoy a bit of cat and mouse.

People like that are the reason these fucking corporations are so entitled. The problem is not governments or legislations, the problem is us.

Until we decide that we will not finance companies that pull bullshit like this, no amount of legislation will make them stop.