3 ms·

Seems absurd to me. Companies could claim they put whatever they want in that text and the burden of proof would lie with the end user.

Spooky23 9y ago
Absurd but very common. It is important to capture terms when you sign up for things commercially and fight/negotiate terms that allow changes without notification. I’ve definately run into situations where vendors decide to change the rules after the fact, even with things like shrinkwrap desktop software. If you cannot negotiate with the counter party or it’s a goliath like Microsoft/Google/etc who wont negotiate with you, make a practice of downloading terms every quarter as they change.
vijayr 9y ago
It is beyond absurd. It is a lose-lose situation for end users - if we read each line of every EULA, thats all we would be doing all day. If we don't, then we accept very unfriendly terms. Here is a funny example: https://www.geek.com/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-souls-from-unsuspecting-customers-1194091/ https://www.geek.com/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-so...
sigstoat 9y ago
> Seems absurd to me. i'm really interested; what do you think the alternative is? would you be happier if you had to mail in a signed copy of the contract?
- wfo 9y ago
  You are very correct, the fundamental problem here is not that people don't read the EULA, it is that the world "agree" is not meaningful in this context, there is no equitable power relationship between you and the company you are "agreeing" with, they can insert any demand they wish and you have no ability to negotiate or power in the discussion. You should not have to read the EULAs, because companies should not be allowed to require that you waive your fundamental rights like this as a precondition of using their service. If you have a right to sue but every company can demand you waive it before you interact with them, you actually have no right at all. If mandatory arbitration is allowed, the right to sue does not exist. You cannot have one but not the other.
  - sigstoat 9y ago
    > they can insert any demand they wish and you have no ability to negotiate or power in the discussion you have no ability to negotiate because they have something you want, and you're unwilling to give them anything they might want. would a meaningful fraction of the population pay even $1/mo to receive better contractual terms on their dropbox account? without looking at it, i expect that the terms for S3 look quite a bit better. > You should not have to read the EULAs, because companies should not be allowed to require that you waive your fundamental rights like this as a precondition of using their service whoa there. there's allll sorts of stuff that can go into a contract besides waivers of "fundamental rights", that you'd really not want to agree to willy nilly.
    - wfo 9y ago
      >you have no ability to negotiate because they have something you want, and you're unwilling to give them anything they might want. would a meaningful fraction of the population pay even $1/mo to receive better contractual terms on their dropbox account? Yes, you've accurately described the power relationship in the contract "negotiation" and how it allows exploitation and abuse. >whoa there. there's allll sorts of stuff that can go into a contract besides waivers of "fundamental rights", that you'd really not want to agree to willy nilly. Agreed, I was being hyperbolic. You should of course read EULAs (though there's an argument to be made that they should be required to be streamlined, or expressed in plain-language and short) But you don't have to check the EULA for a "slavery clause" that promises you and your children in eternal servitude to the company, similarly you shouldn't have to check to see if you are giving up other fundamental rights.
- germanier 9y ago
  I can give you an example from a very different legal tradition, the German one. Even some in Germany say it goes too far in the other direction but it might be valuable to see what others are doing. Whenever a contract party uses preformulated clauses (i.e. not negotiated for that specific contract) such as TOS, they are limited in what they are allowed to put in there and any unclear clause is interpreted to their disadvantage. It cannot be unreasonably detrimental or surprising to the other party. For contracts with consumers there is a list of what is definitely considered detrimental. It includes binding arbitration. Yes, this limits the freedom to conclude contracts. The justification used is that usually the party using preformulated clauses has much larger negotiating power and such a relationship is usually not made of equals.
- prawn 9y ago
  I've wondered if there couldn't be a reasonable superset of base statements in simple English that had a fuller legal meaning, but were generally consumer friendly and agreed upon by a council of business and government. These could be read and agreed to fairly quickly. (Effectively the law, but as written for Simple English Wikipedia; and much more limited in length.) As has been said, reading every legal document in the footer of every site/product is just not practical. The vast, vast majority of consumers are absolutely at the mercy of every company they deal with.

Spooky23 9y ago

Absurd but very common. It is important to capture terms when you sign up for things commercially and fight/negotiate terms that allow changes without notification. I’ve definately run into situations where vendors decide to change the rules after the fact, even with things like shrinkwrap desktop software. If you cannot negotiate with the counter party or it’s a goliath like Microsoft/Google/etc who wont negotiate with you, make a practice of downloading terms every quarter as they change.

vijayr 9y ago

It is beyond absurd. It is a lose-lose situation for end users - if we read each line of every EULA, thats all we would be doing all day. If we don't, then we accept very unfriendly terms. Here is a funny example: https://www.geek.com/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-souls-from-unsuspecting-customers-1194091/ https://www.geek.com/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-so...

sigstoat 9y ago

> Seems absurd to me. i'm really interested; what do you think the alternative is? would you be happier if you had to mail in a signed copy of the contract?

wfo 9y ago
You are very correct, the fundamental problem here is not that people don't read the EULA, it is that the world "agree" is not meaningful in this context, there is no equitable power relationship between you and the company you are "agreeing" with, they can insert any demand they wish and you have no ability to negotiate or power in the discussion. You should not have to read the EULAs, because companies should not be allowed to require that you waive your fundamental rights like this as a precondition of using their service. If you have a right to sue but every company can demand you waive it before you interact with them, you actually have no right at all. If mandatory arbitration is allowed, the right to sue does not exist. You cannot have one but not the other.
- sigstoat 9y ago
  > they can insert any demand they wish and you have no ability to negotiate or power in the discussion you have no ability to negotiate because they have something you want, and you're unwilling to give them anything they might want. would a meaningful fraction of the population pay even $1/mo to receive better contractual terms on their dropbox account? without looking at it, i expect that the terms for S3 look quite a bit better. > You should not have to read the EULAs, because companies should not be allowed to require that you waive your fundamental rights like this as a precondition of using their service whoa there. there's allll sorts of stuff that can go into a contract besides waivers of "fundamental rights", that you'd really not want to agree to willy nilly.
  - wfo 9y ago
    >you have no ability to negotiate because they have something you want, and you're unwilling to give them anything they might want. would a meaningful fraction of the population pay even $1/mo to receive better contractual terms on their dropbox account? Yes, you've accurately described the power relationship in the contract "negotiation" and how it allows exploitation and abuse. >whoa there. there's allll sorts of stuff that can go into a contract besides waivers of "fundamental rights", that you'd really not want to agree to willy nilly. Agreed, I was being hyperbolic. You should of course read EULAs (though there's an argument to be made that they should be required to be streamlined, or expressed in plain-language and short) But you don't have to check the EULA for a "slavery clause" that promises you and your children in eternal servitude to the company, similarly you shouldn't have to check to see if you are giving up other fundamental rights.
germanier 9y ago
I can give you an example from a very different legal tradition, the German one. Even some in Germany say it goes too far in the other direction but it might be valuable to see what others are doing. Whenever a contract party uses preformulated clauses (i.e. not negotiated for that specific contract) such as TOS, they are limited in what they are allowed to put in there and any unclear clause is interpreted to their disadvantage. It cannot be unreasonably detrimental or surprising to the other party. For contracts with consumers there is a list of what is definitely considered detrimental. It includes binding arbitration. Yes, this limits the freedom to conclude contracts. The justification used is that usually the party using preformulated clauses has much larger negotiating power and such a relationship is usually not made of equals.
prawn 9y ago
I've wondered if there couldn't be a reasonable superset of base statements in simple English that had a fuller legal meaning, but were generally consumer friendly and agreed upon by a council of business and government. These could be read and agreed to fairly quickly. (Effectively the law, but as written for Simple English Wikipedia; and much more limited in length.) As has been said, reading every legal document in the footer of every site/product is just not practical. The vast, vast majority of consumers are absolutely at the mercy of every company they deal with.