4 ms·

Just a moment, is the argument stating that an implicit contract (that is, the Terms of Service) which I was not required to accept to browse the website, can m

by trebor 11y ago

Just a moment, is the argument stating that an implicit contract (that is, the Terms of Service) which I was not required to accept to browse the website, can make using an Ad Blocker illegal? What about: malware distributed through ad networks, offensive advertisements (the original reason I installed an ad blocker!), and so many advertisements that a midrange spec'd machine staggers when scrolling or navigating?

anowlcalledjosh 11y ago
By browsing the website, the argument is that you implicitly accepted the ToS. It's legally shaky, and generally the ToS or a link to them must have been provably shown to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
- spinlock 11y ago
  How far can you take that? Can a spammer put up a TOS claiming that by accessing their site you are agreeing to host their botnet?
  - anowlcalledjosh 11y ago
    Presumably, but the botnet is still likely to be used for illegal purposes, which will get someone (hopefully the spammer, but IANAL) prosecuted.
- trebor 11y ago
  In a court case for hacking, Zappos tried to invoke their browse wrap ToS clause for arbitration, which the court struck down. It was unenforceable for these reasons: • Zappos placed a link to its Terms of Use between the middle and bottom of each page, only visible if a user scrolls down. • If the Zappos.com homepage is printed to hard copy, the link appears on page 3 of 4. • The Terms of Use link was the same size, font, and color as most other non-significant links. • The website did not direct a user to the Terms of Use when creating an account, logging into an existing account, or making a purchase. This describes Terms of Use links for virtually all sites, even today. I'd say that this makes browse wrap very shaky, legally. [1]: http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-use-on-your-website-an-enforceable-agreement/ http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-... [2]: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2012cv00325/88233/21/ https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada... Personally, I find any site assuming that their terms of service is enforceable to be shaky because EULA law is also traditionally shaky. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

by trebor 11y ago

anowlcalledjosh 11y ago

By browsing the website, the argument is that you implicitly accepted the ToS. It's legally shaky, and generally the ToS or a link to them must have been provably shown to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap

spinlock 11y ago
How far can you take that? Can a spammer put up a TOS claiming that by accessing their site you are agreeing to host their botnet?
- anowlcalledjosh 11y ago
  Presumably, but the botnet is still likely to be used for illegal purposes, which will get someone (hopefully the spammer, but IANAL) prosecuted.
trebor 11y ago
In a court case for hacking, Zappos tried to invoke their browse wrap ToS clause for arbitration, which the court struck down. It was unenforceable for these reasons: • Zappos placed a link to its Terms of Use between the middle and bottom of each page, only visible if a user scrolls down. • If the Zappos.com homepage is printed to hard copy, the link appears on page 3 of 4. • The Terms of Use link was the same size, font, and color as most other non-significant links. • The website did not direct a user to the Terms of Use when creating an account, logging into an existing account, or making a purchase. This describes Terms of Use links for virtually all sites, even today. I'd say that this makes browse wrap very shaky, legally. [1]: http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-use-on-your-website-an-enforceable-agreement/ http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-... [2]: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2012cv00325/88233/21/ https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada... Personally, I find any site assuming that their terms of service is enforceable to be shaky because EULA law is also traditionally shaky. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.