4 ms·

While I am a bit sympathetic with this ruling, I think it's a net negative result for rule of law. There should be some terms under which you are interacting. T

While I am a bit sympathetic with this ruling, I think it's a net negative result for rule of law. There should be some terms under which you are interacting. The terms as listed are pretty easy to find. The link pretty clearly says that if you proceed you agree to the terms. They have a link to the terms. You don't have to proceed. It's not really that hidden or misleading. Adding a check box doesn't make it that much more likely for someone to read it, not enough to materially change the facts here. Every piece of software has terms and conditions, so seeking those out seems like a low bar. If the standard is "well nobody reads those things anyway", then a lot of mortgages and credit card agreements could be invalid. Frankly most propositions on the ballot should be invalid, as those aren't even linked in any way to the ballot where you vote. This December's bill in the US congress that was like 5,000 pages long and they only had 2 hours until the vote to read it, that should be invalid. If there was a plausible alternative agreement they might have agreed to, then I could understand the ruling. But as a matter of law, this seems like a bad call.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
The terms should be what a reasonable person actually reads when going through their registration process. When I signed a mortgage contract, I had to separately initial every single page and the closing attorney summarized the contents of each section of the contract. That should be the experience they replicate if they want their TOS to be legally binding. "You agree that you cannot sue Uber but must instead take any disputes through arbitration" A bit of boilerplate describing the exact nature of the arbitration, but nothing unrelated to arbitration... ... ... ... | Agree | | Disagree | Followed by another similar dialog for every major term.
- daniel-cussen 6y ago
  They should also announce how long it takes to read their whole TOS. And really, what if you switched the marketing copy and the terms of service? The marketing says how the app works, the terms of service does too, why not pay to advertise the terms of service, and when you sign up, you get to read their beautiful marketing copy.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  Or put a test at the end.
mchusma 6y ago
I guess to state what I think should be a real solution to this problem: people should have their own AI lawyer that works on their behalf to flag things they might want to object to. I helped build a surprisingly effective prototype of such a thing using a very simple "bag of words" approach, and it had >99% accuracy in identifying clauses, because they almost all use the same words, basically by design. So this is pretty trivial to build in the grand scheme of things. Courts should prevent companies from banning AI assistants, that is where they could help.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- daniel-cussen 6y ago
  What are the products that do this called?
ianai 6y ago
There should be terms. They shouldn’t be unilaterally assigned.
PeterisP 6y ago
"There should be some terms under which you are interacting" - sure, and those default terms are defined by the law. The company should not get the ability to have users automatically forfeit rights that they have (such as the right to dispute claims in court instead of arbitration, as in this particular case) by unilaterally putting something in their terms and conditions. Nonnegotiated contracts of adhesion with consumers can and should be limited in their scope, what clauses are permissible there and what are not.
vharuck 6y ago
>Every piece of software has terms and conditions, so seeking those out seems like a low bar. I consider this evidence against Uber's case. For example, I recently set up a new smart TV and Google Home sound system for my parents. There had to have been 8 separate legal agreements, each very long, just to get to the point where we had a picture and sound came out the speakers. They are sense blobs of legalese, and most people assume they know what they say, but they don't. It is ridiculous to ask people to either retain a personal lawyer or pursue their own education in law, just so they can understand and agree to the Terms and Conditions, EULA, and privacy agreements for all their apps. Is it specifically Uber's fault the vast majority of users don't actually understand what they've agreed to? No. But it's reality, and we can't just ignore it.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Tangentially; It's awfully hard to get the TOS/EULA etc, before purchasing a product which essentially coerces the end user into agreeing under duress. I don't need to sign a eula to take a taxi or train, why should I expect the uber eula to be anything except: -if I damage the car I pay for repairs -i agree to pay for the trip -i agree to follow the laws of the land ?
Barrin92 6y ago
>While I am a bit sympathetic with this ruling, I think it's a net negative result for rule of law I disagree because I think it's important that the rule of law is intelligible to ordinary people. It doesn't just apply to Uber's TOS but almost everyone's. We've moved way past the point where someone can be expected to actually have an understanding of the legal ramifications of what they sign. Even if you were to read all of it, hardly anyone can even decipher what rights they actually have if they made it to a court given how counter-intuitive much of it is even to educated people. >If the standard is "well nobody reads those things anyway", then a lot of mortgages and credit card agreements could be invalid. I think that's actually a completely legitimate argument and it's why a lot of behaviour in the loan industry can be predatory and why arguments towards "rational consumers" hold little merit. The world has gotten so complex, it's left a lot of people behind.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  > We've moved way past the point where someone can be expected to actually have an understanding of the legal ramifications of what they sign I'm more worried that if people did understand, they wouldn't sign, but that would essentially opt them out of modern society, so there's a coercive element to tapping "agree."
  - canofbars 6y ago
    This is why most of what the EU has been doing is forcing websites to include a "I want to use the site but not be tracked" button rather than a simple "I agree / close website" popup
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    >that would essentially opt them out of modern society That's all I want from life, to be left alone, far removed from all the vapid bullshit of "modern society". I want to stop worrying how the game show host in chief is killing my countrymen today. I want to stop doomscrolling the news without it hurting my ability to survive. I want to live an existence where my greatest worries are will my flock and crop perform this year, and will I be a good parent, spouse, and neighbor. Period. Full stop. This world is so needlessly cruel, dehumanizing, and, irrational that I want out. My dreams of escaping to a mundane life on the land is what gets me out of bed each day and then stops me from making worse choices than demeaning myself for money. If we hold peoples hands and show them just how utterly fucked they are then maybe we can finally have cogent discussions on how to solve the deep systemic problems that lead to inane situations like this, without it taking generations.
internet_user 6y ago
How can there be a rule of law when you have so many laws on the book, it is literally impossible for anyone to know what they are? Worse, they are being produced as such a rate no human can keep up. Law failed.
etripe 6y ago
I couldn't disagree more about it being a negative result for rule of law. It's important to keep in mind that the law is in no way endemically just and merely represents the political caste's codified consensus. Part of the legal branch's responsibility is weighing whether the law makes sense and whether it should be applied as written. Arguably in this case: no. What users are presented with aren't terms and services, it's oodles of legalese gibberish. The language is obtuse on purpose and not comprehensible unless you are a corporate lawyer yourself. To put it in programming terms: they have no accessibility and UX to speak of. That is fine for contracts between corporations, as they are negotiated and vetted by both parties' legal teams, resulting in a document that represents a give and take. If nothing else, it ensures endless work for the people that consider this stuff interesting. I don't believe regular consumers should be subjected to that nonsense, because there's an inherent imbalance in legal representation between the corporate "person" and the consumer's person, for one. That imbalance is in theory compensated for in consumer protection laws, which wouldn't need to be repeated in these T&Cs or EULAs. These types of agreements should be condensed to short paragraphs or even bullet points detailing what special agreements you enter into when using the service. If nothing else, to make it easier to filter the text for sections where it expects you to waive basic protections - which is at least unenforceable as far as I understand. We live in times where corporate compliance departments, the corporate lawyers they work with and corporate "rights" are taken way too seriously, with little to no regard for corporate responsibility or sociability. At the same time, there are a lot of talking heads claiming "the economy servers consumers' interests" and "the free market benefits all". De facto, these agreements aren't meant to be a bi-lateral agreement protecting both parties to the contract's interests. They're more often than not exclusively meant to cover corporate asses. Is that really a net benefit to society as a whole?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

The terms should be what a reasonable person actually reads when going through their registration process. When I signed a mortgage contract, I had to separately initial every single page and the closing attorney summarized the contents of each section of the contract. That should be the experience they replicate if they want their TOS to be legally binding. "You agree that you cannot sue Uber but must instead take any disputes through arbitration" A bit of boilerplate describing the exact nature of the arbitration, but nothing unrelated to arbitration... ... ... ... | Agree | | Disagree | Followed by another similar dialog for every major term.

daniel-cussen 6y ago
They should also announce how long it takes to read their whole TOS. And really, what if you switched the marketing copy and the terms of service? The marketing says how the app works, the terms of service does too, why not pay to advertise the terms of service, and when you sign up, you get to read their beautiful marketing copy.
dehrmann 6y ago
Or put a test at the end.

mchusma 6y ago

I guess to state what I think should be a real solution to this problem: people should have their own AI lawyer that works on their behalf to flag things they might want to object to. I helped build a surprisingly effective prototype of such a thing using a very simple "bag of words" approach, and it had >99% accuracy in identifying clauses, because they almost all use the same words, basically by design. So this is pretty trivial to build in the grand scheme of things. Courts should prevent companies from banning AI assistants, that is where they could help.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
daniel-cussen 6y ago
What are the products that do this called?

ianai 6y ago

There should be terms. They shouldn’t be unilaterally assigned.

PeterisP 6y ago

"There should be some terms under which you are interacting" - sure, and those default terms are defined by the law. The company should not get the ability to have users automatically forfeit rights that they have (such as the right to dispute claims in court instead of arbitration, as in this particular case) by unilaterally putting something in their terms and conditions. Nonnegotiated contracts of adhesion with consumers can and should be limited in their scope, what clauses are permissible there and what are not.

vharuck 6y ago

>Every piece of software has terms and conditions, so seeking those out seems like a low bar. I consider this evidence against Uber's case. For example, I recently set up a new smart TV and Google Home sound system for my parents. There had to have been 8 separate legal agreements, each very long, just to get to the point where we had a picture and sound came out the speakers. They are sense blobs of legalese, and most people assume they know what they say, but they don't. It is ridiculous to ask people to either retain a personal lawyer or pursue their own education in law, just so they can understand and agree to the Terms and Conditions, EULA, and privacy agreements for all their apps. Is it specifically Uber's fault the vast majority of users don't actually understand what they've agreed to? No. But it's reality, and we can't just ignore it.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
Tangentially; It's awfully hard to get the TOS/EULA etc, before purchasing a product which essentially coerces the end user into agreeing under duress. I don't need to sign a eula to take a taxi or train, why should I expect the uber eula to be anything except: -if I damage the car I pay for repairs -i agree to pay for the trip -i agree to follow the laws of the land ?

Barrin92 6y ago

>While I am a bit sympathetic with this ruling, I think it's a net negative result for rule of law I disagree because I think it's important that the rule of law is intelligible to ordinary people. It doesn't just apply to Uber's TOS but almost everyone's. We've moved way past the point where someone can be expected to actually have an understanding of the legal ramifications of what they sign. Even if you were to read all of it, hardly anyone can even decipher what rights they actually have if they made it to a court given how counter-intuitive much of it is even to educated people. >If the standard is "well nobody reads those things anyway", then a lot of mortgages and credit card agreements could be invalid. I think that's actually a completely legitimate argument and it's why a lot of behaviour in the loan industry can be predatory and why arguments towards "rational consumers" hold little merit. The world has gotten so complex, it's left a lot of people behind.

dehrmann 6y ago
> We've moved way past the point where someone can be expected to actually have an understanding of the legal ramifications of what they sign I'm more worried that if people did understand, they wouldn't sign, but that would essentially opt them out of modern society, so there's a coercive element to tapping "agree."
- canofbars 6y ago
  This is why most of what the EU has been doing is forcing websites to include a "I want to use the site but not be tracked" button rather than a simple "I agree / close website" popup
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  >that would essentially opt them out of modern society That's all I want from life, to be left alone, far removed from all the vapid bullshit of "modern society". I want to stop worrying how the game show host in chief is killing my countrymen today. I want to stop doomscrolling the news without it hurting my ability to survive. I want to live an existence where my greatest worries are will my flock and crop perform this year, and will I be a good parent, spouse, and neighbor. Period. Full stop. This world is so needlessly cruel, dehumanizing, and, irrational that I want out. My dreams of escaping to a mundane life on the land is what gets me out of bed each day and then stops me from making worse choices than demeaning myself for money. If we hold peoples hands and show them just how utterly fucked they are then maybe we can finally have cogent discussions on how to solve the deep systemic problems that lead to inane situations like this, without it taking generations.

internet_user 6y ago

How can there be a rule of law when you have so many laws on the book, it is literally impossible for anyone to know what they are? Worse, they are being produced as such a rate no human can keep up. Law failed.

etripe 6y ago

I couldn't disagree more about it being a negative result for rule of law. It's important to keep in mind that the law is in no way endemically just and merely represents the political caste's codified consensus. Part of the legal branch's responsibility is weighing whether the law makes sense and whether it should be applied as written. Arguably in this case: no. What users are presented with aren't terms and services, it's oodles of legalese gibberish. The language is obtuse on purpose and not comprehensible unless you are a corporate lawyer yourself. To put it in programming terms: they have no accessibility and UX to speak of. That is fine for contracts between corporations, as they are negotiated and vetted by both parties' legal teams, resulting in a document that represents a give and take. If nothing else, it ensures endless work for the people that consider this stuff interesting. I don't believe regular consumers should be subjected to that nonsense, because there's an inherent imbalance in legal representation between the corporate "person" and the consumer's person, for one. That imbalance is in theory compensated for in consumer protection laws, which wouldn't need to be repeated in these T&Cs or EULAs. These types of agreements should be condensed to short paragraphs or even bullet points detailing what special agreements you enter into when using the service. If nothing else, to make it easier to filter the text for sections where it expects you to waive basic protections - which is at least unenforceable as far as I understand. We live in times where corporate compliance departments, the corporate lawyers they work with and corporate "rights" are taken way too seriously, with little to no regard for corporate responsibility or sociability. At the same time, there are a lot of talking heads claiming "the economy servers consumers' interests" and "the free market benefits all". De facto, these agreements aren't meant to be a bi-lateral agreement protecting both parties to the contract's interests. They're more often than not exclusively meant to cover corporate asses. Is that really a net benefit to society as a whole?