7 ms·

Simple, you just add this to clickwrap agreement: The Parties mutually agree that any and all disputes arising from or relating to this Agreement, including th

Simple, you just add this to clickwrap agreement: The Parties mutually agree that any and all disputes arising from or relating to this Agreement, including the interpretation or application of this Agreement will be submitted exclusively to final and binding arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitration will be conducted the state of Delaware or such other location as the Parties may agree, by a single arbitrator in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Delaware. Boom. No more pesky California law.

wilg 8y ago
Oh are you a lawyer?
- dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago
  OP needs to be not just a lawyer, but your lawyer. I.e. someone who is accountable to you if their advice is wrong.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
carbocation 8y ago
I dislike how the minute someone mentions a legal hack, the responses are "oh, are you a lawyer?" Why not consider this reply on its merits?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ChrisSD 8y ago
  "Legal hacks" are rarely, if ever, as clever as their proponents think. Scepticism is natural and warranted. Judges aren't complete morons and will take a dim view of "hacks". There could be loopholes somewhere but you'd need a lawyer to spot them.
  - jordigh 8y ago
    One of the most famous "legal hacks", Richard Stallman's copyleft, had to be rewritten by a lawyer. rms wrote GPLv1 by himself and you should never use it. GPLv2 is the version that was actually vetted by a lawyer. A similar thing happened with Perl's Artistic License. Its version 2 is basically also a lawyer-approved rewrite. In other words, hackers, don't try this at home. There are professionals who can do this for you.
    - nickpeterson 8y ago
      I find it somewhat sad that law is basically a guild where arcane language is used to gatekeep what should be a much more straightforward exercise.
      - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
        It's not. It's the equivalent of saying "I can do this better" and producing unreliably, buggy code. Sure you can, but a more experienced professional can point out all the corner cases you missed.
        sbov 8y ago
        Then when it fails, you blame the programming language rather than your experience in programming.
      - heavenlyblue 8y ago
        I mean, if you pay attention to the names of the kernel API functions, you'd probably end up with the same conclusion.
      - jancsika 8y ago
        I find it somewhat sad that programming is basically a guild where arcane language is used to gatekeep what should be a much more straightforward exercise.
        8y ago
- jordigh 8y ago
  Because it is super-risky to consider these things on their own merits if you are not the kind of person who regularly interacts with judges and juries. Laws are something that are applied within a particular kind of, ah, culture. You have to be familiar with the body of work of that culture and how they will likely interpret the law. Trying to interpret laws in ignorance of that culture is likely to lead to interpretations contrary to those with the power to enforce the laws, and land you in a lot of trouble. In other words, laws aren't code or mathematics. They're not pure exercises of abstract thought to be considered in isolation. Trying to treat them that way is going to lead to trouble.
  - carbocation 8y ago
    Does everyone downvote all medical speculation in the numerous health threads on this site? No. It's fine for people to speculate about medical ideas, legal ideas, etc. Especially on a forum like this where there is no pretense that people are offering genuine legal advice.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      Or maybe we should express less confidence in our assertions about medicine? After all, most of the time, people are writing about things they don't know all that much about.
      - carbocation 8y ago
        To be honest, one or the other should be the case. Either wild speculation on medicine and law should be fine (this is my position). Or, people should fear medical speculation as much as they do legal speculation (I think this is the more pathetic option).
        yowlingcat 8y ago
        Maybe neither of the extremes you pulled out of your ass is of any use, and you're being downvoted because you left a low information comment and then doubled down on it. The community here really does not approve of treating this public space like Twitter and Reddit, which I value. More to the point -- that idea of a "legal hack" could fail to hold up in court for a variety of reasons, and really the idea of a legal hack in general is really not how anyone who has any experience with the law would expect it to work, at least in the United States. And in a lot of cases, if you try to outwit it through a loophole when you know the spirit of the law, that's even worse. The more pathetic option is people wildly speculating on things they know nothing about as opposed to educating themselves, or at the very least humbly being aware of their own ignorance. Your position is one that has gotten many like you in trouble they can't get out of. It'll bite you too, if you're ever foolish enough to act on it. To anyone out there with a dim view of professional opinions: get a professional opinion when it comes to things like this. Be an adult. Do not try and DIY it. These are situations where the risk reward calculus contains very little reward on one end for remaining compliant and extreme negative consequences on the other end. Learn how to manage the professional opinion haver. The good ones will save you a world of pain with the ounces of prevention that you'll never regret investing in.
- eridius 8y ago
  Probably because anyone who isn't a lawyer has no hope of considering this reply "on its merits". My gut feeling is this "legal hack" wouldn't work, because if it did someone would have used it by now against some other law that provides for damages, and someone else would have figured out how to neuter the hack. Which is to say, there's probably an existing law that prevents this hack from working. But you'd need a lawyer to be able to say whether that's true or not.
wahern 8y ago
Setting aside potential flaws in your thesis, theoretically the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) can be circumvented by making the state the real party in interest but permitting a victim to sue and recover on behalf of the state. Because the state wouldn't be a party to any contract (and also because it's a state), the FAA wouldn't apply. California does this for labor violations through it's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private-Attorneys-General-Act.html https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private... Glancing at the Wikipedia page for CCPA, it's possible that the CCPA is structured similarly--"Companies ... can be ordered in civil class action lawsuits ... subject to an option of the California Attorney General's Office to prosecute the company instead of allowing civil suits to be brought against it." That said, I don't think California's PAGA has ever been tested vis-a-vis the FAA in the Supreme Court because it was only recently that they decided to strictly apply the FAA to employment contracts.
ionised 8y ago
I'd love to see them try this in the EU.
neuland 8y ago
Section 1798.192 covers that: Any provision of a contract or agreement of any kind that purports to waive or limit in any way a consumer’s rights under this title, including, but not limited to, any right to a remedy or means of enforcement, shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable Edit: I suppose that I should say that I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice. And it's completely possible that I have misunderstood this section of the law.

wilg 8y ago

Oh are you a lawyer?

dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago
OP needs to be not just a lawyer, but your lawyer. I.e. someone who is accountable to you if their advice is wrong.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

carbocation 8y ago

I dislike how the minute someone mentions a legal hack, the responses are "oh, are you a lawyer?" Why not consider this reply on its merits?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ChrisSD 8y ago
"Legal hacks" are rarely, if ever, as clever as their proponents think. Scepticism is natural and warranted. Judges aren't complete morons and will take a dim view of "hacks". There could be loopholes somewhere but you'd need a lawyer to spot them.
- jordigh 8y ago
  One of the most famous "legal hacks", Richard Stallman's copyleft, had to be rewritten by a lawyer. rms wrote GPLv1 by himself and you should never use it. GPLv2 is the version that was actually vetted by a lawyer. A similar thing happened with Perl's Artistic License. Its version 2 is basically also a lawyer-approved rewrite. In other words, hackers, don't try this at home. There are professionals who can do this for you.
  - nickpeterson 8y ago
    I find it somewhat sad that law is basically a guild where arcane language is used to gatekeep what should be a much more straightforward exercise.
    - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
      It's not. It's the equivalent of saying "I can do this better" and producing unreliably, buggy code. Sure you can, but a more experienced professional can point out all the corner cases you missed.
      - sbov 8y ago
        Then when it fails, you blame the programming language rather than your experience in programming.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      I mean, if you pay attention to the names of the kernel API functions, you'd probably end up with the same conclusion.
    - jancsika 8y ago
      I find it somewhat sad that programming is basically a guild where arcane language is used to gatekeep what should be a much more straightforward exercise.
      - 8y ago
jordigh 8y ago
Because it is super-risky to consider these things on their own merits if you are not the kind of person who regularly interacts with judges and juries. Laws are something that are applied within a particular kind of, ah, culture. You have to be familiar with the body of work of that culture and how they will likely interpret the law. Trying to interpret laws in ignorance of that culture is likely to lead to interpretations contrary to those with the power to enforce the laws, and land you in a lot of trouble. In other words, laws aren't code or mathematics. They're not pure exercises of abstract thought to be considered in isolation. Trying to treat them that way is going to lead to trouble.
- carbocation 8y ago
  Does everyone downvote all medical speculation in the numerous health threads on this site? No. It's fine for people to speculate about medical ideas, legal ideas, etc. Especially on a forum like this where there is no pretense that people are offering genuine legal advice.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Or maybe we should express less confidence in our assertions about medicine? After all, most of the time, people are writing about things they don't know all that much about.
    - carbocation 8y ago
      To be honest, one or the other should be the case. Either wild speculation on medicine and law should be fine (this is my position). Or, people should fear medical speculation as much as they do legal speculation (I think this is the more pathetic option).
      - yowlingcat 8y ago
        Maybe neither of the extremes you pulled out of your ass is of any use, and you're being downvoted because you left a low information comment and then doubled down on it. The community here really does not approve of treating this public space like Twitter and Reddit, which I value. More to the point -- that idea of a "legal hack" could fail to hold up in court for a variety of reasons, and really the idea of a legal hack in general is really not how anyone who has any experience with the law would expect it to work, at least in the United States. And in a lot of cases, if you try to outwit it through a loophole when you know the spirit of the law, that's even worse. The more pathetic option is people wildly speculating on things they know nothing about as opposed to educating themselves, or at the very least humbly being aware of their own ignorance. Your position is one that has gotten many like you in trouble they can't get out of. It'll bite you too, if you're ever foolish enough to act on it. To anyone out there with a dim view of professional opinions: get a professional opinion when it comes to things like this. Be an adult. Do not try and DIY it. These are situations where the risk reward calculus contains very little reward on one end for remaining compliant and extreme negative consequences on the other end. Learn how to manage the professional opinion haver. The good ones will save you a world of pain with the ounces of prevention that you'll never regret investing in.
eridius 8y ago
Probably because anyone who isn't a lawyer has no hope of considering this reply "on its merits". My gut feeling is this "legal hack" wouldn't work, because if it did someone would have used it by now against some other law that provides for damages, and someone else would have figured out how to neuter the hack. Which is to say, there's probably an existing law that prevents this hack from working. But you'd need a lawyer to be able to say whether that's true or not.

wahern 8y ago

Setting aside potential flaws in your thesis, theoretically the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) can be circumvented by making the state the real party in interest but permitting a victim to sue and recover on behalf of the state. Because the state wouldn't be a party to any contract (and also because it's a state), the FAA wouldn't apply. California does this for labor violations through it's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private-Attorneys-General-Act.html https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private... Glancing at the Wikipedia page for CCPA, it's possible that the CCPA is structured similarly--"Companies ... can be ordered in civil class action lawsuits ... subject to an option of the California Attorney General's Office to prosecute the company instead of allowing civil suits to be brought against it." That said, I don't think California's PAGA has ever been tested vis-a-vis the FAA in the Supreme Court because it was only recently that they decided to strictly apply the FAA to employment contracts.

ionised 8y ago

I'd love to see them try this in the EU.

neuland 8y ago

Section 1798.192 covers that: Any provision of a contract or agreement of any kind that purports to waive or limit in any way a consumer’s rights under this title, including, but not limited to, any right to a remedy or means of enforcement, shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable Edit: I suppose that I should say that I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice. And it's completely possible that I have misunderstood this section of the law.