3 ms·

While I don't disagree, and I'm not sure if this applies specifically to Google in this case, but as a general trend oftentimes users sign their class action ri

by peller 10y ago

While I don't disagree, and I'm not sure if this applies specifically to Google in this case, but as a general trend oftentimes users sign their class action rights away in the EULA by way of an arbitration clause.[0] This, in and of itself, is also IMO a huge abuse of power. But it's perfectly legal and only serves to further entrench the power of the monopolists. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause

waldfee 10y ago
This clause will be null and void in most EU jurisdictions. So maybe from this side of the pond?
rebootthesystem 10y ago
Agree and disagree. Nobody reads these things. Ergo, nobody agrees to them. Let's get it in front of a Jury. What do you want to bet that not one person in the Jury has ever read these incredibly one-sided, purposely obscure, usually incredibly long and complex agreements? Nobody. Not the Judge nor the Jury. Not to get political, this is precisely one of those things that earned Democrats a defeat. Demeaning and diminishing others eventually has consequences. Being completely insensitive to the needs and plight of average folks. To hide behind EULAs crafted by the powerful, for the powerful and damn you little insignificant people is disgusting. To think so little about people and users that it is deemed OK to upend their lives instantly by a mindless, heartless algorithm. This is the behavior of a mean vindictive totalitarian dictator, not of a business that purports to be guided by Democratic ideals and concepts such as "first do no evil". The hypocrisy is deep and wide. Nah, a Jury would destroy them.
- dbot 10y ago
  Getting in front a jury means surviving summary judgment. A good contract is designed to allow any disputes be resolved at the summary judgment stage. It's been a while since I've looked at the enforceability of clickwrap class-action waivers, but it's either enforceable or not as a matter of law. No factual issues in dispute = no jury required.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago
    I could very easily argue they are fraudulent. The technology has existed for years to ensure that people agree to such important matters as giving up all your rights. Of course they don't want to put that in front of people because they'd have massive push-back. Imagine an interactive EULA being presented to a user clause-by-clause with clear large print and a clause-by-clause agreement button. I'd be surprised if these things could survive a well mounted legal challenge purely based on common sense. The intention of these companies is to take it all from the user and have exactly zero responsibility and exposure. Way too one-sided for companies that affect hundreds of millions of people, particularly if they claim not to do evil. If public shaming won't do it maybe government intervention will.

by peller 10y ago

waldfee 10y ago

This clause will be null and void in most EU jurisdictions. So maybe from this side of the pond?

rebootthesystem 10y ago

Agree and disagree. Nobody reads these things. Ergo, nobody agrees to them. Let's get it in front of a Jury. What do you want to bet that not one person in the Jury has ever read these incredibly one-sided, purposely obscure, usually incredibly long and complex agreements? Nobody. Not the Judge nor the Jury. Not to get political, this is precisely one of those things that earned Democrats a defeat. Demeaning and diminishing others eventually has consequences. Being completely insensitive to the needs and plight of average folks. To hide behind EULAs crafted by the powerful, for the powerful and damn you little insignificant people is disgusting. To think so little about people and users that it is deemed OK to upend their lives instantly by a mindless, heartless algorithm. This is the behavior of a mean vindictive totalitarian dictator, not of a business that purports to be guided by Democratic ideals and concepts such as "first do no evil". The hypocrisy is deep and wide. Nah, a Jury would destroy them.

dbot 10y ago
Getting in front a jury means surviving summary judgment. A good contract is designed to allow any disputes be resolved at the summary judgment stage. It's been a while since I've looked at the enforceability of clickwrap class-action waivers, but it's either enforceable or not as a matter of law. No factual issues in dispute = no jury required.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  I could very easily argue they are fraudulent. The technology has existed for years to ensure that people agree to such important matters as giving up all your rights. Of course they don't want to put that in front of people because they'd have massive push-back. Imagine an interactive EULA being presented to a user clause-by-clause with clear large print and a clause-by-clause agreement button. I'd be surprised if these things could survive a well mounted legal challenge purely based on common sense. The intention of these companies is to take it all from the user and have exactly zero responsibility and exposure. Way too one-sided for companies that affect hundreds of millions of people, particularly if they claim not to do evil. If public shaming won't do it maybe government intervention will.