6 ms·
I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on so
by losteric 8y ago
I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system.
These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against.
When those ludicrous cases are widely used as a means of attack or personal enrichment, of course corporations will respond with excessive legal restrictions. Their shareholders don't want to lose money to frivolous lawsuits or be exposed to risks competitors have covered.
- WalterSear 8y agoA warning is not a contract.
- mcny 8y agoI anal but it might be worth looking into making EULA null and void. But first (sorry for sounding like a broken record), we must repeal the cfaa.
- thomasfedb 8y agoDo they actually write that on carbonated drinks in USA? That's brilliant.
- DanBC 8y agoA warning appears on some UK labels. Pepsi Max has "pressurised container, please open slowly and handle with care" on the label.
- lbriner 8y agoHaven't you seen the McDonalds coffee in the UK? "Warning, contents may be hot" The "may" always makes me chuckle.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gaius 8y agoThey were sued in the US by some woman who scalded herself when she spilled McDonalds coffee on herself. She was given millions.
- fjsolwmv 8y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Burn_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock her in order to pollute public sentiment in favor of corporations over victims, so thejury awarded $2.7 millions in punitive damages to defend the public against McDonald's brazen attack on himan society. The Judge lowered the award to $640K; and McDonald's appealed, refusing for the third time. They eventually settled for a confidential amount.
- CtrlAltT5wpm 8y agoTo add context, the original awarded amount was calculated to be the revenue of a single day of coffee sales for McDonald's. Stella Liebeck had originally sued for ~$50,000, to cover the cost of her medical bills, which McDonald's refused to do. Additionally, the award was calculated at that amount as a punitive measure, because McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints from customers of the coffee being too hot, which it summarily ignored. The coffee had been a problem; McDonald's just didn't care. Unfortunately, the lawsuit, and the seemingly 'ridiculous-at-first-glance' nature of the headlines surrounding it, was used by several companies to push for specific tort reforms, which were mostly to the detriment of the average public. There's more to this than "Dumbass sues company because hot coffee was hot". Hot Coffee https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/
- mikeash 8y agoThere’s a bag of almonds in my pantry that literally says “Contains almonds” on it in the fine print.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoAnd cooking spray sometimes says "Fat free!" because an average 'serving' contains < 10 calories of fat. Yet its 100% fat. A spray can of fat.
- mikeash 8y agoSimilarly, Tic Tacs are listed as containing 0 grams of sugar, despite being made of 94.5% sugar.
- thomasfedb 8y agoThat being legal is insane. That has to be misleading labelling.
- akiselev 8y agoThat's due to allergen labelling regulations. Since a lot of stuff can contain artificial almond extract or other substitutes when labeled as almond-based or flavored, the regulations don't carve out any exceptions, even when the allergen literally is the product.
- johncalvinyoung 8y agoAllergen labelling is a huge blessing to anyone with serious allergies. Yes, labeling A Package of Allergens with 'Contains Allergen' might feel weird, but it's critical for non-obvious ingredients and contaminants.
- mikeash 8y agoI don’t quite get your point. It’s bizarre and nonsensical in this case, but really useful in other cases, so...? I don’t know how that sentence ends.
- cylinder 8y agoMake losing plaintiffs pay the defendant's attorney's fees and costs, it changes everything
- howard941 8y agoIt sure does change everything, including the locks to the courthouse doors.
- adrian_mrd 8y ago> I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. I would concur with this. From the software firm's perspective, there is less risk in being overly cautious (i.e. EULAs) than to have less restrictive and open rights. Maybe there is a need for a standard common-law contract that provides a set of 8-10 basics and then any companies have to specifically spell out what is different in their personal EULA - and the user can either accept or reject those additional terms? A true accept or reject, that is, and not just two buttons ;) But then why are EULAs allowed in countries that are far less litigious? Are other countries compelled to adopt the EULA for their citizens (convenient!), lobbied or pressured via free- or other trade agreements with the USA (soft/smart lobbying!), or are we, as users to blame for pressing 'accept' without any lobbying efforts of our own?
- pjmlp 8y agoIn most European countries EULAs are only valid if you are given the opportunity to read it before buying the product. It is not legally binding to sign for something after having paid for it. Now if the box states somewhere a kind of EULA introduction, with indication where to read the full version, then it is another matter.
- fjsolwmv 8y agoConsidering the many YouTube videos of exploding bottles, the warning is for the 10000 people a day learning something for the first time. What's wrong with using literacy to help people learn from the miatskes of others?
- kikoreis 8y agoUsers don't read. We have warnings in my state next to elevators that read "Ensure elevator is at this floor before entering". This is literally accurate but practically ludicrous. The solution to problems of this nature is almost always redesign.
- hedvig 8y agoCorporations (and their shareholders oh god) are not poor persecuted victims. Corporations govern our lives. They should not be free to do whatever they want. With the intentional erosion of most means to settle civil disputes, the court is the last refuge for the individual against a private group. The people behind tort reform (you know who they are) don't even care about the specific "frivolous" lawsuits themselves. They care about getting rid of environmental, consumer, and worker protections in general. Because they stand in the way of profits.