4 ms·
> there's little the law can do to prevent people from agreeing to such things. True, iff the customer was adequately informed about the offer in a way most pe
by pdkl95 10y ago
> there's little the law can do to prevent people from agreeing to such things.
True, iff the customer was adequately informed about the offer in a way most people will understand. Contracts are not supposed to be a "gotcha" with extra terms buried in the fine print. If the installer only featured the "bait" and mentioned the adware behind a dark pattern UI or deep in the text of the contract, a judge could (and should) void that part of the contract.
> Maybe a requirement for certain disclosures to be made more prominent
At a minimum.
That said, the issue isn't really with the person that installs the software. There isn't a contract between the adware scammers and e.g. Target or Wikipedia.
- ikeboy 10y ago>a judge could (and should) void that part of the contract. There's a difference between voiding a contract that no longer obligates people, and voiding a contract to make actions taken under it illegal. I'm not sure there's good precedent for the latter. >There isn't a contract between the adware scammers and e.g. Target or Wikipedia. They're not touching Wikipedia, they're running on the user's computer and manipulating their local served page of Wikipedia. I don't see why anyone else would have a case.
- spacecowboy_lon 10y agoAnny illegal terms in a contract are void.
- ikeboy 10y agoThe argument isn't that it's illegal, but that it wasn't properly agreed to.