4 ms·

And how does a judge seriously decide to retroactively apply an arbitrarion agreement when none existed at the time of the transaction? Is the argument that the

• mickronome 8y ago
  It seems the argument could be that since he didn't object to the new ToS when they were changed, and kept using parts of their service, the clause forbidding arbitration towards RSI is/was still binding. One oddity, except the usual insanity that click-through agreements should be valid for anything above, lets say $100, is that it appears the newer ToS explicitly states it doesn't apply retroactively. However, since the arbitration would always occur in the future from the later ToS, it might be a moot point. If all of this is true, and the law correctly applied. Doesn't it create a situation where any ToS for a service - at least those you actually depend upon - are essentially worthless? Seems like if a change the ToS to include an arbitration clause is applied this way, your only option would be immediately stop using the service, or the provider would be able to do whatever they wanted hereonafter, even completely ignore the rest of the contract/ToS?
  • djsumdog 8y ago
    > usual insanity that click-through agreements should be valid for anything above, lets say $100 No body reads these. We're talking about the literal <1%, and in most of those are probably lawyers who either write them or the law firms involved in cases like this. I'm surprised there isn't more backlash against click-through EULAs.