This issue is no mere price increase. It concerns the abrupt termination of a new product's major feature...one that undoubtedly influenced the consumer's buying decision.
Here's an analogy. More than a few years ago Kodak introduced a line of instant developing film cameras to compete with the Polaroid Land. Polaroid prevailed in the resulting patent infringement suit and, instead of accepting a licensing agreement as customary in these cases, forced Kodak to immediately abandon all support for their instant camera. No repair.No batteries. No film. Tens of thousands of Kodak cameras became worthless overnight. Apart from the 30-day warranty, Kodak had no contract with the consumer to sell film or parts for its new camera, yet the court decided that it would be UNFAIR to consumers who bought a product in good faith to be deprived of its use so abruptly. Kodak had to compensate owners of the infringing camera.
I use this instance to illustrate that consumers are not only entitled to the benefits of provided by contract, but are entitled to fair dealings with a purchase. the Court will decide if the Defendants in the case acted unfairly, not simply in accordance with a contract.