8 ms·

I suspect the fine print will eventually be outlawed for use on the average consumer (unless we radically increase the education of the average consumer). It is

I suspect the fine print will eventually be outlawed for use on the average consumer (unless we radically increase the education of the average consumer). It is well established by now that today's average consumer lacks the reading comprehension level required to fully understand these fine print agreements.

mikeash 11y ago
I don't know that it's about reading comprehension. I think most consumers could understand them if they put the effort in. The problem is simply that people don't read this stuff in the first place. They simply sign without reading, assuming/hoping/praying that the terms are reasonable. And really, can you blame them? Contracts are so vastly overused and they're made with the assumption that the consumer isn't going to read them. Most companies won't give you a two-page contract if a twenty-page contract will do. Many contracts are excessively long and are part of a sales process built on speed that assumes nobody will take the time to read before signing. I would like to see a change in how contracts are handled, such that if one side knows the other side didn't read before signing, the contract is void. That wouldn't take care of everything (American Express's contract is probably handled by mail, so they can reasonably expect you to read the contract at leisure in your home before you sign) but it would put a stop to abusive situations in retail, where they had you a bunch of paperwork to sign. If they had to actually watch you and make sure you read it all before signing, the contracts would probably become a lot shorter. If people got used to reading the things, then it might even change their habits for other scenarios like doing stuff through the mail. However, I also think it is completely insane that contracts are allowed to put any restrictions on either party's access to courts. The whole point of courts is to be the arbiter when something goes wrong. A clause saying that you must use some third-party arbitration service instead of the courts, or a clause saying that you agree not to participate in class-action lawsuits, should be completely unenforceable, just like a clause that says you agree to become the other party's slave.
- waqf 11y ago
  I don't, as a consumer, sign these things because I think they're reasonable. I sign them because I don't have the negotiating power to get a better contract, and the market isn't frictionless enough to offer my preferred terms at any reasonable price. There is already specific law in some jurisdictions which reduces the applicability of this kind of consumer take-it-or-leave-it contract: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I think that simply requiring the contracts to be read in order to have force could take care of unreasonable terms in this case. Here's how I imagine it playing out: 1. Because long contracts would immediately cause hugely increased costs for these companies if they had to wait for every customer to read them, they would greatly reduce the length and complexity of their contracts. 2. The most unconscionable clauses are also often the least necessary, so they would likely be the first to go. Of those that remain, the consumer is now much more likely to both read and understand them. 3. Because everybody is reading the contracts, they'll become aware of unconscionable clauses immediately, rather than only when they get bitten, or when they see some news story like this one. 4. Because everybody knows they're in there, competitive pressure or widespread outcry should force the removal of any remaining unconscionable clauses. (In theory this should happen now, but in practice people mostly don't know the clauses are there in the first place.) Reading the whole contract as an individual wouldn't change much (although I think it's a good idea anyway), but I think that forcing everyone to read them would change a lot.
    - emergentcypher 11y ago
      Whether you've read the contract is entirely meaningless when there are only three competitors in your market who all offer the exact same contract and have the freedom to tell you to fuck off if you don't want to sign it. It is all about bargaining power.
      - mikeash 11y ago
- m_fayer 11y ago
  >Most consumers... They simply sign without reading... You seem to be implying that many people on HN do read them, and if that's the case, I would be very surprised. I certainly don't. There's frequently a new EULA I have to consent to when I update iOS, or iTunes, or some app, or sign into a cloud console, and the list goes on. If I read all of them it would probably add up to a good workday every week. I'm willing to bet that the number of people who are willing to devote that large a chunk of their lives to reading EULAS is somewhere near zero.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    You've edited the quote to make it look like I said something I didn't say. I said that "most consumers" could understand what contracts say if they actually read and put in effort to understand them. I said that "people," meaning basically everybody, don't read contracts in the first place. "Most consumers" and "sign without reading" aren't together in my original comment, either in space or meaning! In any case, I certainly didn't mean to imply that HN readers are any different in either respect. I'm sure most HN readers could understand contracts, and I'm also sure that almost none of them actually read the boilerplate ones.
    - m_fayer 11y ago
      I just highlighted the phrases that made me interpret your statement as I did, but I misinterpreted. Wasn't intentional, thanks for the correction.
  - BlackFly 11y ago
    I edit the HTML on most end user agreements I sign to read, "I disagree and waive no rights," then I click that button. I wonder in what sense these agreements are enforceable when they cannot prove that people actually agreed with them? Hard copies of contracts are kept for a reason, I always assumed.
    - ryan-c 11y ago
      I would really like to see that play out in court. The fix (for the companies) would be to simply include the text of the contract (or maybe even just a hash) in the form submission.
- zzzeek 11y ago
  > The problem is simply that people don't read this stuff in the first place. They simply sign without reading, assuming/hoping/praying that the terms are reasonable. that's not the problem. I see these arbitration clauses all the time, yet I sign anyway. Because I can't function without a credit card, without a cellphone, without internet hookups to my house, etc. It's not reasonable to say that I have to forego these services, or that I need to carefully shop for those vanishingly few providers that currently don't have such a clause, only for them to add one in when the contract renews in a year. What choice does the consumer really have if these clauses are unavoidable? edit: waqf's comment makes this point way better.
- Glyptodon 11y ago
  I don't have the time to read all this crap if I wanted to. And even if I did, I have no recourse to unreasonable terms. It's not like there's an actual negotiation going on.
snarfy 11y ago
Considering corporate influence on the government, I suspect fine print laws will be strengthened, not outlawed.
belorn 11y ago
Let say that I sell a car with the fine print that said "To the extent permitted by applicable law, you may not drive it, move it or sell it". Having the reading comprehension to read that is very different from the required legal comprehension to understand it. Customers who do read every contract they sign and see a clause about individual arbitration will have to parse it under the legal context in which the statement is put.
Quanticles 11y ago
There is also an imbalance in negotiating position in these agreements. If every credit card company you deal with says you must agree to arbitration, what leverage do you have to push back on that? There's just not enough competition in the market to push back on each one of the issues raised in these agreements. Either the government needs to create enough competition in the market such that consumers have choice on these issues, or the government needs to advocate for the consumers.
- micwawa 11y ago
  Or some very ambitious consumer advocate needs to step up and form some sort of large scale consumer union. I would be "in."
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Absolutely. I'd join just on general principle. I think this could also be pulled off by somebody like Costco. They already have a big membership and strong negotiating power. And a large part of their job is sorting through many possible merchandise options and only providing the good ones to their members. It'd be nice to see them take it a step further.

mikeash 11y ago

I don't know that it's about reading comprehension. I think most consumers could understand them if they put the effort in. The problem is simply that people don't read this stuff in the first place. They simply sign without reading, assuming/hoping/praying that the terms are reasonable. And really, can you blame them? Contracts are so vastly overused and they're made with the assumption that the consumer isn't going to read them. Most companies won't give you a two-page contract if a twenty-page contract will do. Many contracts are excessively long and are part of a sales process built on speed that assumes nobody will take the time to read before signing. I would like to see a change in how contracts are handled, such that if one side knows the other side didn't read before signing, the contract is void. That wouldn't take care of everything (American Express's contract is probably handled by mail, so they can reasonably expect you to read the contract at leisure in your home before you sign) but it would put a stop to abusive situations in retail, where they had you a bunch of paperwork to sign. If they had to actually watch you and make sure you read it all before signing, the contracts would probably become a lot shorter. If people got used to reading the things, then it might even change their habits for other scenarios like doing stuff through the mail. However, I also think it is completely insane that contracts are allowed to put any restrictions on either party's access to courts. The whole point of courts is to be the arbiter when something goes wrong. A clause saying that you must use some third-party arbitration service instead of the courts, or a clause saying that you agree not to participate in class-action lawsuits, should be completely unenforceable, just like a clause that says you agree to become the other party's slave.

waqf 11y ago
I don't, as a consumer, sign these things because I think they're reasonable. I sign them because I don't have the negotiating power to get a better contract, and the market isn't frictionless enough to offer my preferred terms at any reasonable price. There is already specific law in some jurisdictions which reduces the applicability of this kind of consumer take-it-or-leave-it contract: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I think that simply requiring the contracts to be read in order to have force could take care of unreasonable terms in this case. Here's how I imagine it playing out: 1. Because long contracts would immediately cause hugely increased costs for these companies if they had to wait for every customer to read them, they would greatly reduce the length and complexity of their contracts. 2. The most unconscionable clauses are also often the least necessary, so they would likely be the first to go. Of those that remain, the consumer is now much more likely to both read and understand them. 3. Because everybody is reading the contracts, they'll become aware of unconscionable clauses immediately, rather than only when they get bitten, or when they see some news story like this one. 4. Because everybody knows they're in there, competitive pressure or widespread outcry should force the removal of any remaining unconscionable clauses. (In theory this should happen now, but in practice people mostly don't know the clauses are there in the first place.) Reading the whole contract as an individual wouldn't change much (although I think it's a good idea anyway), but I think that forcing everyone to read them would change a lot.
  - emergentcypher 11y ago
    Whether you've read the contract is entirely meaningless when there are only three competitors in your market who all offer the exact same contract and have the freedom to tell you to fuck off if you don't want to sign it. It is all about bargaining power.
    - mikeash 11y ago
m_fayer 11y ago
>Most consumers... They simply sign without reading... You seem to be implying that many people on HN do read them, and if that's the case, I would be very surprised. I certainly don't. There's frequently a new EULA I have to consent to when I update iOS, or iTunes, or some app, or sign into a cloud console, and the list goes on. If I read all of them it would probably add up to a good workday every week. I'm willing to bet that the number of people who are willing to devote that large a chunk of their lives to reading EULAS is somewhere near zero.
- mikeash 11y ago
  You've edited the quote to make it look like I said something I didn't say. I said that "most consumers" could understand what contracts say if they actually read and put in effort to understand them. I said that "people," meaning basically everybody, don't read contracts in the first place. "Most consumers" and "sign without reading" aren't together in my original comment, either in space or meaning! In any case, I certainly didn't mean to imply that HN readers are any different in either respect. I'm sure most HN readers could understand contracts, and I'm also sure that almost none of them actually read the boilerplate ones.
  - m_fayer 11y ago
    I just highlighted the phrases that made me interpret your statement as I did, but I misinterpreted. Wasn't intentional, thanks for the correction.
- BlackFly 11y ago
  I edit the HTML on most end user agreements I sign to read, "I disagree and waive no rights," then I click that button. I wonder in what sense these agreements are enforceable when they cannot prove that people actually agreed with them? Hard copies of contracts are kept for a reason, I always assumed.
  - ryan-c 11y ago
    I would really like to see that play out in court. The fix (for the companies) would be to simply include the text of the contract (or maybe even just a hash) in the form submission.
zzzeek 11y ago
> The problem is simply that people don't read this stuff in the first place. They simply sign without reading, assuming/hoping/praying that the terms are reasonable. that's not the problem. I see these arbitration clauses all the time, yet I sign anyway. Because I can't function without a credit card, without a cellphone, without internet hookups to my house, etc. It's not reasonable to say that I have to forego these services, or that I need to carefully shop for those vanishingly few providers that currently don't have such a clause, only for them to add one in when the contract renews in a year. What choice does the consumer really have if these clauses are unavoidable? edit: waqf's comment makes this point way better.
Glyptodon 11y ago
I don't have the time to read all this crap if I wanted to. And even if I did, I have no recourse to unreasonable terms. It's not like there's an actual negotiation going on.

snarfy 11y ago

Considering corporate influence on the government, I suspect fine print laws will be strengthened, not outlawed.

belorn 11y ago

Let say that I sell a car with the fine print that said "To the extent permitted by applicable law, you may not drive it, move it or sell it". Having the reading comprehension to read that is very different from the required legal comprehension to understand it. Customers who do read every contract they sign and see a clause about individual arbitration will have to parse it under the legal context in which the statement is put.

Quanticles 11y ago

There is also an imbalance in negotiating position in these agreements. If every credit card company you deal with says you must agree to arbitration, what leverage do you have to push back on that? There's just not enough competition in the market to push back on each one of the issues raised in these agreements. Either the government needs to create enough competition in the market such that consumers have choice on these issues, or the government needs to advocate for the consumers.

micwawa 11y ago
Or some very ambitious consumer advocate needs to step up and form some sort of large scale consumer union. I would be "in."
- wpietri 11y ago
  Absolutely. I'd join just on general principle. I think this could also be pulled off by somebody like Costco. They already have a big membership and strong negotiating power. And a large part of their job is sorting through many possible merchandise options and only providing the good ones to their members. It'd be nice to see them take it a step further.