4 ms·

These are most likely not legally binding in the UK as consumer contracts and notices as a whole have to be fair (transparent, in good faith and intelligible) t

These are most likely not legally binding in the UK as consumer contracts and notices as a whole have to be fair (transparent, in good faith and intelligible) to consumers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

hnbad 3y ago
Same in Germany. There was an interesting case against WhatsApp banning a user for using a third-party app, which WhatsApp argued was against the ToS but the court ruled that the user could not have expected this to result in account termination as using third-party clients was perfectly acceptable practice for similar apps and the user was not explicitly warned this would happen. Basically you can't sneak gotchas into a ToS, you have to make sure users know they're violating a rule. Ironically this is unlike actual laws where ignorance is not an excuse even if the law is weird and unexpected.
- Aachen 3y ago
  Interesting case, I didn't know of that one. Thanks for posting! > Ironically this is unlike actual laws where ignorance is not an excuse I think it's similar to real laws. Unacceptable rules: sneaking in terms such as that your firstborn child will belong to me is not enforceable: nobody could expect or would agree to that. In law, similarly, you can't just upend someone's life for a minor infraction, or indeed take a child in exchange for your use of an ordinary government service. If this were to pass, a court would strike it down based on human rights or constitution, so you'd have to change/disavow those also as a country. Acceptable rules: sneaking in terms that are fair are enforceable. Your third party client ban is an example where the rule is acceptable, but the consequences deemed disproportionate and so a warning is in order before cutting one off. This is similar to many laws, for example mildly dangerous driving gets you a fine or few days/weeks of driving ban. It takes repeat offences to get banned outright. Failure to pay taxes doesn't result in them showing up to auction your TV off, but they send a nice letter first, even if they'll eventually show up with a writ and after you're been warned that this is the next step, because indeed, we don't expect everyone to know everything. I'm not a lawyer and can't cite relevant cases or anything, but this is my impression of law as a lay person. It's rarely perfectly fair towards everyone in all situations, and I think we should pay even more heed to "but how was I supposed to know"s whenever a situation is legitimately complex and good intent was shown (to avoid that people avoid doing good things because they don't know what legal risk it puts them in, such as what good samaritan laws are aimed to avoid), but it does try to find balances between what people can reasonably know and follow, at least in northwestern Europe which I'm most familiar with.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    > In law, similarly, you can't just upend someone's life for a minor infraction Yeah, that's the theory. But what a judge will decide qualifies for "minor" may or may not align with what is sane or what most people believe, and this gets worse and worse if you go into higher courts with politically appointed judges. On practice governments upend people lives all the time, even for presumed infractions that may not be there at all.
    - Aachen 3y ago
      I kind of agree with that. I did say "It's rarely perfectly fair towards everyone in all situations", but I'd be curious to hear of examples where you think the judge ruled something goes so far that makes you say it doesn't "align with what is sane" and that such things happen all the time. Do you have any examples? Edit: from a place like Germany as the person above was talking about, to be clear. If such things are trivial to find in the USA would not surprise me in the slightest
- rodolphoarruda 3y ago
  > " you have to make sure users know" There is a lot to be learned in this regard from financial products online. Most of them have built in functionality to let users know what they are doing and the associated risk.
  - andylynch 3y ago
    That’s because there have been countless similar games played for centuries and financial/ consumer protection regulations have forced them to. Where they aren’t regulated the same way, it’s a minefield. eg the CFD firms advertising on TV aren’t saying ’72% of our customers lose money ‘ because it’s nice or helpful.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    I'm not sure if this is also present in EU law but in German law online services like web shops and in-app purchases require very specific wording for any button that has the user commit to a payment or purchase. The recommended wording (which you're allowed to deviate from but is not recommended unless you know what you're doing) in German is "Zahlungspflichtig bestellen", which means something like "Order with obligation to pay". The label "Kaufen" ("Purchase") was deemed insufficient. Note that this also requires the user to be informed about what they will have to pay before they click the button. No bullshit surprise charges or hidden fees, mostly.
    - rodolphoarruda 3y ago
      > The label "Kaufen" ("Purchase") was deemed insufficient. This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Grimblewald 3y ago
do you have the money to fight corpo inc. when the repo men come for your first born sons eyes?
robbywashere_ 3y ago
The US will get there eventually. We just need to rip each other apart over public bathrooms first
justinclift 3y ago
They're legally binding of the "we have more lawyers than you, but a long shot" variety. :/

hnbad 3y ago

Same in Germany. There was an interesting case against WhatsApp banning a user for using a third-party app, which WhatsApp argued was against the ToS but the court ruled that the user could not have expected this to result in account termination as using third-party clients was perfectly acceptable practice for similar apps and the user was not explicitly warned this would happen. Basically you can't sneak gotchas into a ToS, you have to make sure users know they're violating a rule. Ironically this is unlike actual laws where ignorance is not an excuse even if the law is weird and unexpected.

Aachen 3y ago
Interesting case, I didn't know of that one. Thanks for posting! > Ironically this is unlike actual laws where ignorance is not an excuse I think it's similar to real laws. Unacceptable rules: sneaking in terms such as that your firstborn child will belong to me is not enforceable: nobody could expect or would agree to that. In law, similarly, you can't just upend someone's life for a minor infraction, or indeed take a child in exchange for your use of an ordinary government service. If this were to pass, a court would strike it down based on human rights or constitution, so you'd have to change/disavow those also as a country. Acceptable rules: sneaking in terms that are fair are enforceable. Your third party client ban is an example where the rule is acceptable, but the consequences deemed disproportionate and so a warning is in order before cutting one off. This is similar to many laws, for example mildly dangerous driving gets you a fine or few days/weeks of driving ban. It takes repeat offences to get banned outright. Failure to pay taxes doesn't result in them showing up to auction your TV off, but they send a nice letter first, even if they'll eventually show up with a writ and after you're been warned that this is the next step, because indeed, we don't expect everyone to know everything. I'm not a lawyer and can't cite relevant cases or anything, but this is my impression of law as a lay person. It's rarely perfectly fair towards everyone in all situations, and I think we should pay even more heed to "but how was I supposed to know"s whenever a situation is legitimately complex and good intent was shown (to avoid that people avoid doing good things because they don't know what legal risk it puts them in, such as what good samaritan laws are aimed to avoid), but it does try to find balances between what people can reasonably know and follow, at least in northwestern Europe which I'm most familiar with.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > In law, similarly, you can't just upend someone's life for a minor infraction Yeah, that's the theory. But what a judge will decide qualifies for "minor" may or may not align with what is sane or what most people believe, and this gets worse and worse if you go into higher courts with politically appointed judges. On practice governments upend people lives all the time, even for presumed infractions that may not be there at all.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    I kind of agree with that. I did say "It's rarely perfectly fair towards everyone in all situations", but I'd be curious to hear of examples where you think the judge ruled something goes so far that makes you say it doesn't "align with what is sane" and that such things happen all the time. Do you have any examples? Edit: from a place like Germany as the person above was talking about, to be clear. If such things are trivial to find in the USA would not surprise me in the slightest
rodolphoarruda 3y ago
> " you have to make sure users know" There is a lot to be learned in this regard from financial products online. Most of them have built in functionality to let users know what they are doing and the associated risk.
- andylynch 3y ago
  That’s because there have been countless similar games played for centuries and financial/ consumer protection regulations have forced them to. Where they aren’t regulated the same way, it’s a minefield. eg the CFD firms advertising on TV aren’t saying ’72% of our customers lose money ‘ because it’s nice or helpful.
- hnbad 3y ago
  I'm not sure if this is also present in EU law but in German law online services like web shops and in-app purchases require very specific wording for any button that has the user commit to a payment or purchase. The recommended wording (which you're allowed to deviate from but is not recommended unless you know what you're doing) in German is "Zahlungspflichtig bestellen", which means something like "Order with obligation to pay". The label "Kaufen" ("Purchase") was deemed insufficient. Note that this also requires the user to be informed about what they will have to pay before they click the button. No bullshit surprise charges or hidden fees, mostly.
  - rodolphoarruda 3y ago
    > The label "Kaufen" ("Purchase") was deemed insufficient. This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Grimblewald 3y ago

do you have the money to fight corpo inc. when the repo men come for your first born sons eyes?

robbywashere_ 3y ago

The US will get there eventually. We just need to rip each other apart over public bathrooms first

justinclift 3y ago

They're legally binding of the "we have more lawyers than you, but a long shot" variety. :/