Thanks Ella, I understand how it works, but I’m concerned about the reason(s). It doesn’t make sense to issue chargebacks when users haven't requested them, especially since they were already notified about the upcoming pricing changes. Is there some sort of regulation at play? If so, I don't think it was clearly communicated. We’ve been encouraged to move to PPE throughout the last year or so, yet this was never mentioned as far as I remember. I believe there should have been more transparency regarding this.

I'm sorry you feel there hasn't been transparency. Can you help me understand something, please? Is the general expectation that a rental customer will pay the entire rental cost as well as the per-event price for their Actor runs after the Actor migrates from rental to PPE? If so, I have personally misunderstood a need for clarity here and will push our team to make this process much clearer.

While I can't speak for others, this caught me off guard. Specifically: - Automatic chargebacks: It is frustrating to see charges issued without user consent (Unless there're some regulations at play?). I know several of these users personally (as acquaintances), and they confirmed they had no intention of requesting a chargeback. - The PPE transition: I moved to PPE because Apify suggested it, yet I ended up with unexpected fees (chargebacks). Since I followed your guidance, I believe a 50/50 cost-sharing agreement for these specific charges would be a much more reasonable outcome Had this been clear from the start, I would have duplicated the actor rather than updating the existing one. It’s not about the money; it’s about the lack of predictability. It would have been much fairer to skip chargebacks for users who had already been notified of the upcoming pricing change As it stands, this policy definitely discourages developers from upgrading successful actors. Most would rather duplicate their work than take a financial hit on an existing user base. Unless this was intentionally left vague, it would certainly explain why so many developers are duplicating the same actors..

Thanks, I understand your point. I am going to pass this feedback onto our team and see how we can improve transparency around the migration process. I really appreciate you taking the time to this feedback in detail, and will follow up in this thread when we implement some of your suggestions.