4 ms·

Because the current law on fraud is not enough for this. And that is a good thing: a fraud law so flexible as to prevent this beforehand would clearly be an ov

by aylons 10y ago

Because the current law on fraud is not enough for this. And that is a good thing: a fraud law so flexible as to prevent this beforehand would clearly be an overly broad law.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Agreed, for sure. I think I'd prefer something like an International Standards / World Best Practice certification, along with a mandated plain English (or whatver localised language) EULA.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  There is no such thing as a plain language EULA. They are legally binding contracts and therefore must use legal terminology. Even when companies do provide an alternative "non-legalese" version, there's always a clause indicating that the legalese version takes precedent in any legal interpretation.
  - analognoise 10y ago
    Everyone should be forced to read this statement until it sinks in.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > They are legally binding That's debatable. The enforceability of an EULA depends on the details of the situation. > contracts Many are not a contract, which has specific requirements. Even when an EULA is a contract, unconscionable parts - perhaps a clause that is clearly about a "dark pattern" scam - can be nullified.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      There's some misinformation here. They are certainly a contract, and are handled as such in law suits. In fact, one mechanism by which they are sometimes invalidated is called "contract of adhesion", which of course cannot happen if they are not a contract in the first place. [0] However, even then, being ruled a "contract of adhesion" simply allows clauses of a contract to be ruled invalid based on a much tighter set of criteria. The fact that the EULA is a contract itself will still stand. [1] Also, every contract may contain clauses which may be ruled unenforceable. This is not an unknown, and is why every contract has a severability clause. [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contrac... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enf... Specifically: "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms." [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

by aylons 10y ago

Because the current law on fraud is not enough for this. And that is a good thing: a fraud law so flexible as to prevent this beforehand would clearly be an overly broad law.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Agreed, for sure. I think I'd prefer something like an International Standards / World Best Practice certification, along with a mandated plain English (or whatver localised language) EULA.

jdmichal 10y ago
There is no such thing as a plain language EULA. They are legally binding contracts and therefore must use legal terminology. Even when companies do provide an alternative "non-legalese" version, there's always a clause indicating that the legalese version takes precedent in any legal interpretation.
- analognoise 10y ago
  Everyone should be forced to read this statement until it sinks in.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > They are legally binding That's debatable. The enforceability of an EULA depends on the details of the situation. > contracts Many are not a contract, which has specific requirements. Even when an EULA is a contract, unconscionable parts - perhaps a clause that is clearly about a "dark pattern" scam - can be nullified.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    There's some misinformation here. They are certainly a contract, and are handled as such in law suits. In fact, one mechanism by which they are sometimes invalidated is called "contract of adhesion", which of course cannot happen if they are not a contract in the first place. [0] However, even then, being ruled a "contract of adhesion" simply allows clauses of a contract to be ruled invalid based on a much tighter set of criteria. The fact that the EULA is a contract itself will still stand. [1] Also, every contract may contain clauses which may be ruled unenforceable. This is not an unknown, and is why every contract has a severability clause. [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contrac... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enf... Specifically: "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms." [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability