Tebex Warning: 'Remove After' Feature does not work for free producs

[Urek]

My Experience with Tebex: Why the “Remove After” Feature May Not Protect Your IP

Hi everyone,

I’m sharing my recent experience with Tebex to help other developers avoid a situation where they might unintentionally lose control of their scripts. If you are using the built-in “Remove from customer after X days” feature for trials or limited access, please read this.

The Background

To allow my community to test my new script, I set up a trial version. I used the standard feature in the Tebex Dashboard: “Remove from customer after X days.” I assumed, based on the UI description and the documentation under “How to create a package,” that access would be automatically revoked after the time limit.

The Discovery: Access is NOT Revoked

After several weeks, I noticed that users who claimed the trial still had full access to the script in their Keymaster. The revocation never happened. When I reached out to support, I received two critical admissions that every creator should be aware of:

Admission #1: The UI is acknowledged as “Confusing” On Jan 6th, I was told by support:

“I can see where the confusion comes from… for FiveM assets specifically… there is no automatic revocation mechanism for those [free] deliveries.”

Admission #2: The Systemic Limitation On Jan 10th, another agent clarified:

“For FREE purchases or free trials, there is no payment to refund, so the transaction cannot enter a “refunded” state, and access cannot be revoked after delivery.”

Admission #3:

"the setting “remove after X amount of days” does not work for FiveM assets; only commands do."

The Documentation

Tebex does have a guide for “simulating” a free trial, but it is located under the “Recurring Payments” (Subscriptions) section. It suggests using 100% off coupons.

If you are selling a one-time purchase script, you likely won’t be looking at subscription documentation. This means the UI provides you with a “Remove After” button that the staff admits is non-functional for FiveM, while the “fix” is hidden in a different product category.

Legal Concerns regarding “Dark Patterns”

When I brought this to their attention, I was told the manual revocation of the licenses was a “goodwill gesture.” I find this concerning. Under EU Law (Digital Services Act, Art. 25), platforms are prohibited from using “Dark Patterns” interfaces that deceive or mislead users.

Providing a visible toggle that the platform knows does not work for its primary asset type (FiveM), and then labeling the manual fix as “goodwill” rather than a contractual obligation, is a practice I believe creators should be wary of.

The Support Experience

When I pushed for a resolution, the experience became unprofessional:

• A Support Supervisor incorrectly claimed I had used “manual payments” as a workaround. I have never used manual payments; these were standard webstore checkouts.
• My store’s total sales volume ($6.00) was brought up by the Supervisor in a way that felt like a justification to dismiss my rights as a creator.
  
  

My Advice to Creators

Based on my experience:

1. Do not trust the “Remove After” toggle for FiveM scripts unless you are on a subscription model.
2. Check your Keymaster right now if you have used this feature; your “trial” users likely still have your files.
3. Use the “Coupon” method (100% off a paid package) if you want the ability to revoke access later.

I am sharing this simply to ensure other creators are informed and can protect their work.

If you have had a bad experience with Tebex yourself, please write it below. I really want to hear if others have faced similar technical failures or unprofessional support.

[giocatore]

While you have Legitimate complaints about documentation being confusing, it is in no way a dark pattern as defined by the law. It is not intentional and they gave you the information you asked for along with clarifying any.

In Tebex’s defense, a timed trial would technically be a subscription due to how their platform works and is the only way to handle removing a users license compared to revoking a one time payment which does not have a timed limitation. There are consumer laws defining and protecting this as well.

It’s pretty well known that you can’t revoke assets from someone’s portal account. Subscriptions work by removing the license if there isn’t an active subscription but it doesn’t remove the asset to my knowledge.

[Urek]

I appreciate the technical context, but I have to disagree on the legal interpretation. For clarity, here is the Digital Services Act (Article 25, Section 1) 1:1 as stated in the law:

‘Providers of online platforms shall not design, organise or operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives, manipulates or otherwise materially distorts or impairs the ability of recipients of their service to make free and informed decisions.’

If the back-end requires a subscription to handle timed revocations, then the ‘Remove After X Days’ toggle should not be available or active on ‘One-time Purchase’ packages. Providing a button that suggests a feature works, while knowing it doesn’t for that asset type, is a design that ‘materially distorts’ a creator’s ability to make an informed decision. I only offered my script for free because that button existed.

You mentioned it is not intentional because they clarified the information. However, they only gave that to me after the fact and after the damage had been done. Under the law, “informed decisions” must be possible at the point of use. Getting an explanation from support weeks after my assets have been permanently lost is not transparency; it is damage control for a deceptive interface.

You mentioned it’s ‘well-known’ that assets can’t be revoked easily. It might be well-known to veteran developers, but for a new creator, the official UI is the source of truth. If the Dashboard says ‘Automatically revoke access,’ a user should be able to trust that without hunting through subscription documentation for a one-time product.

Even the support staff admitted they could ‘see where the confusion comes from.’ If the people who operate the platform acknowledge the confusion, then the interface has failed the legal requirement to not ‘deceive or manipulate’ the user’s understanding of how their IP is being handled.

The goal of my PSA is to highlight that technical limitations do not excuse a lack of transparency in the UI. A platform has a responsibility to ensure its tools work as advertised before a user clicks the button, not after they lose their work.

Furthermore, I want to shine a light on the complete failure of the internal process. Although this case was initially sent to compliance@tebex.io, I never received a response from them. Instead, a matter of this severity, involving cited law and IP loss was dumped back into the low-level support queue.

The support staff appeared completely lost, the support manager did not even respond correctly, mentioning “manual sales” and “workarounds” that were never actually used. When a legal and compliance level dispute is treated like a basic “how-to” ticket, it further complicates an already misleading process and demonstrates a total lack of oversight.

[giocatore]

@Urek

then the interface has failed the legal requirement to not ‘deceive or manipulate’ the user’s understanding of how their IP is being handled.

Except with every case of dark patterns and deceptive practices, you have to prove they were done so with malicious intent to defraud the user. I’m no judge, but that doesn’t seem like the case here. The companies that have been successfully fined have shown consistent and known behavior they were trying to avoid regulations designed to protect consumers.

I said I agreed that it’s confusing but you are harming your own argument by using these long hyperbolic examples of the law in ways that aren’t applicable. If you feel this strongly, report them to your legal body responsible for consumer protections.

[Urek]

I understand your point, but the legal reality has shifted significantly in recent years. Under the Digital Services Act (Article 25), the requirement to prove “malicious intent” has been replaced by the “Effect” on the user.

The law explicitly prohibits interfaces that deceive or manipulate users “either on purpose or in effect.” If a button exists that promises an action (revocation) and a user relies on that to give away their IP, the legal violation is the misleading design itself, regardless of whether the company “intended” for it to fail.

Furthermore, we don’t have to guess if they knew, the emails I received prove it:

• Support specifically told me, “I can see where the confusion comes from… for FiveM assets specifically… there is no automatic revocation mechanism.” This proves they are fully aware the button is a “ghost feature” for our asset type, yet they choose to leave it active in the dashboard.

For a company of Tebex’s scale, keeping a known “broken” button in the UI isn’t a simple mistake.
It’s a failure of professional diligence. Regulators like the FTC and EU Commission have ruled in cases (like the $245M Epic Games settlement) that if your UI design makes an unintended outcome inevitable, you are responsible for that outcome.
If I stand in my dashboard and click a button that says “Revoke Access,” I am making an informed decision based on the tool provided. If that tool fails, the “intent” of the programmer is irrelevant to the actual financial and IP loss I suffered.

My goal here isn’t to take them to court for $80. I already got what I wanted from them. It’s to inform the community about this issue and show how Tebex treats it like nothing. What Tebex calls “confusing documentation”, the law calls a Deceptive Design.

To be clear, I am not trying to argue with you. I see your points and understand where you are coming from. I am just having a normal conversation and sharing the facts of my experience so others in the community can stay informed.

[SMDZStudios]

Hi @Urek

First of all, I’m really sorry you had to go through such an unpleasant situation.

Based on your experience, what would you say is currently the safest and most reliable way to provide a FiveM Asset Escrow resource temporarily, so a server can test a script without receiving permanent access to it?

Would a recurring Tebex subscription with a 100% discount for the first billing period work correctly, or is there still a risk that the asset remains permanently available in their Cfx.re Portal account?

[Urek]

I haven’t faced any issues using the subscription with a 100% off method, which is also what Tebex suggests. What I would recommend from my own experience is to put a big text or a reminder for your clients to use one time cards, or to remove their cards immediately after so they do not get charged more than once in case they forget