3 ms·

I’ve been waiting for this sort of thing. Naturally, since a TOS represents informed consent and is somehow a legally binding contract, then the next innovation

I’ve been waiting for this sort of thing. Naturally, since a TOS represents informed consent and is somehow a legally binding contract, then the next innovation is to add financial terms to them. Hopefully, such a company will push the boundary so far that the entire world of TOS will be overturned by some court decision. Imagine walking into a mall and ending up consenting by accident to the tos nonsense we have now.

gridlockd 7y ago
> a TOS represents informed consent and is somehow a legally binding contract Not necessarily. If you bury surprising stuff like this in the TOS, it's likely not enforceable. The court knows that nobody reads these endless TOS anyway and would likely rule the clause "unreasonable". However, it can still work as a means of intimidation. Also, let's imagine Wag actually tried to collect those 1000$, some people may not even fight it. I think this is a case of "there is no such thing as bad publicity". I don't use Wag, but like most "gig economy" platforms, I would expect it's already thoroughly despised.
- judge2020 7y ago
  My understanding is that TOS clauses are only binding when they're things users generally know when they sign up, such as "don't hack our systems", "you dont own our stuff by using it" and other CYA clauses. The only thing I don't think this would work for is binding arbitration, but those are joined by a "this agreement contains a binding arbitration agreement you must read" line at the top of the TOS and is valid under case law.
- jasonjayr 7y ago
  People would fight $1000. If they wanted to hide a surprise fee like that, and hoped folks would let it slide, they should have kept it under $100.
300bps 7y ago
When I was six I put up a sign saying my sister was stupid and then added a clause at the end, “$5 fine for touching this sign.” She ripped the sign down and I never got my $5.

gridlockd 7y ago

> a TOS represents informed consent and is somehow a legally binding contract Not necessarily. If you bury surprising stuff like this in the TOS, it's likely not enforceable. The court knows that nobody reads these endless TOS anyway and would likely rule the clause "unreasonable". However, it can still work as a means of intimidation. Also, let's imagine Wag actually tried to collect those 1000$, some people may not even fight it. I think this is a case of "there is no such thing as bad publicity". I don't use Wag, but like most "gig economy" platforms, I would expect it's already thoroughly despised.

judge2020 7y ago
My understanding is that TOS clauses are only binding when they're things users generally know when they sign up, such as "don't hack our systems", "you dont own our stuff by using it" and other CYA clauses. The only thing I don't think this would work for is binding arbitration, but those are joined by a "this agreement contains a binding arbitration agreement you must read" line at the top of the TOS and is valid under case law.
jasonjayr 7y ago
People would fight $1000. If they wanted to hide a surprise fee like that, and hoped folks would let it slide, they should have kept it under $100.

300bps 7y ago

When I was six I put up a sign saying my sister was stupid and then added a clause at the end, “$5 fine for touching this sign.” She ripped the sign down and I never got my $5.