If collaboration happens between two humans, out side of vercel you cannot sell that back to the user.
Vercel neither put the effort nor provide said product that facilitated the collaboration.
This feels like a legal case waiting to happen
Summary of Complaint
Account Type: Vercel Hobby Plan (Free)
Issue: A staging deployment was blocked by Vercel because the Git commit was authored by a collaborator (colleague) rather than the Hobby team owner. Vercel flagged this as “collaboration” and required an upgrade to the Pro plan ($20/month per member) to allow the deployment.
Complaint:
-
The collaboration occurred entirely within Git source control—a third-party tool not provided by Vercel.
-
Vercel does not provide any collaboration tools or services that would justify charging for “collaboration.”
-
The user argues that Vercel is restricting a deployment based on commit authorship and then requiring payment to remove that restriction, rather than charging for an actual product, service, or feature that Vercel has built.
-
The user views this practice as unethical—being charged to unlock functionality rather than being charged for value provided.
Desired Outcome: Vercel should only charge for products they create or services they provide effort toward. Blocking deployments based on a third party’s Git commit and requiring payment to unblock is viewed by the user as equivalent to “ransomware by proxy”—holding the user’s work hostage rather than offering genuine value.