Besides posting to other forums, it may be effective to email those who have previously reviewed Parallels, especially comparative reviews with competitive products and especially those published on major news outlets, suggesting an update or story about this.
This is my suggestion to Parallels (if they are continuing to read this thread):
Apologize and reverse the action, allowing the previous number of CPUs and RAM until the next version (i.e., Parallels 13), for which this limitation can be properly advertised. Otherwise, offer the choice of a refund or a free change to the Pro version.
I do believe that there is a basis for charging consumer fraud. It is a classic bait and switch fraud, except that it is done months later when it is too late to contest the purchase on my charge card. They sold me a product that was consistent with the previous version I had been using (with which I was using more RAM) without advertising this new limitation or implementing it in the software that they delivered for my purchase. Then, after the period during which I could have contested the sale, in the guise of a minor upgrade they take back the product I purchased and put an inferior product in its place. Also, it appears to be a willful attempt to hide this limitation in order to position the Standard product against a competitive product at the exact same price point but which does not have this limitation. As evidence of willful action, Parallels still hasn't presented this fundamental limitation in the version comparison or other marketing descriptions on their product webpage, even after the Company became aware that those who have purchased the software have complained.
It really is not about the money, it is about the way this has been done --- selling and delivering a fully functional product and then months later crippling that product via what appears to be a minor update without any advertisement or advance notice of a significant limitation.
