VPN Service Dispute Evidence Kit

Automatically document gaps between advertised VPN terms and actual limits to help users get refunds

Problem

Users buy VPN/proxy services advertised for 10 simultaneous devices, but the provider actually limits them to 2 networks, breaking normal usage. When they request a prorated refund, support disables the account and tells them to dispute through the payment channel—leaving the user with no side-by-side evidence.

Solution

Users paste the provider's plan description and the actual limits they encountered; the tool automatically compares them and generates a timestamped discrepancy report plus a refund request template. It also logs the account ban timeline so users can submit structured evidence to payment platforms or community complaints.

Users

Chinese-speaking users who frequently use VPN/proxy services, remote workers, and cross-border users who need multi-device, multi-network connectivity.

MVP

Paste text or screenshots to extract plan terms; compare with user-entered actual limits and highlight gaps; generate a timestamped PDF report; provide bilingual refund request email templates; save records locally.

Revenue

Free basic report + paid evidence package (multi-provider records, legal templates, cloud archive) as one-time purchase or subscription; affiliate or referral partnerships with consumer rights communities.

Why now

Opaque VPN terms and refund disputes recur in Chinese communities, but users lack structured tools. Implementation is just text comparison plus template generation, so an indie developer can ship an MVP in about a week.