5 ms·
Interesting argument. This relies on the circular backreference to § 64.2007(b) from § 64.2005(a)(2), and wouldn't seem to apply for the § 64.2005(a)(1) case.
by greyface- 3y ago
Interesting argument. This relies on the circular backreference to § 64.2007(b) from § 64.2005(a)(2), and wouldn't seem to apply for the § 64.2005(a)(1) case. Google's messaging uses "opt in", which seems to be at odds with an intent to rely on an opt-out characterization.
I'd also welcome review from a lawyer with experience here.
- Terretta 3y agoGoogle customer communication could say 'unless you take action you will be shanghaied'. Then it's easier to understand if their approach is allowed by the law -- seems yes. Their consumer-facing terminology isn't what the law required. The law required one of two approaches, and they implemented the 'they default you in' one.