3 ms·

I'm waiting for these sorts of unilateral "we have updated our terms of service, by doing nothing, you agree to these new terms" contractual edicts get eliminat

by sneak 3y ago

I'm waiting for these sorts of unilateral "we have updated our terms of service, by doing nothing, you agree to these new terms" contractual edicts get eliminated as a whole class of behavior. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if it stops when enough of them get invalidated in court, or ifwhen the legislature steps in. It's insane that it's accepted as normal that someone can send you an email with notice of a contract being altered (without even including those changes in the email) and you are deemed to have agreed to this new contract without even seeing it or taking any action whatsoever. Companies that do this are shitty, and the people that run them are shitty people.

not_your_vase 3y ago
Getting an email sounds quite courteous. Most companies just put an extra sentence some in the footer along the lines of "these terms can be updated anytime without prior notice. check back here every 20 minutes, if you want to know about it, lol" (HN has this too btw - which makes sense for accounts without email. Not so polite regarding the other accounts.)
roughly 3y ago
I mean, the whole premise of end-user license agreements is insane - "By using our product, you, a technically and legally unsophisticated user, assert that you have read, understood, and agree to the 45 pages of legalese that we put in front of you in a 300x200px window, and we assert that we believe that you, a technically and legally unsophisticated user, fully understood that contract, despite our metrics collected on the length of time between it showing up on your screen and you hitting the 'Accept' button suggesting that you're some kind of hyper-optimized button-clicking robot." It's very clear that that construct's been allowed to facilitate rapid business transactions over any particular legal clarity or protection, so I wouldn't expect this behavior to face any additional challenges.
hash872 3y ago
Agreed. Here's my question (because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration): What happens if you try to challenge insanely overbroad terms in arbitration? Because you almost certainly signed away your right to sue. I'm not super-worked up about attorneys putting the most restrictive language that they can in a contract, knowing that in 'real' court a judge will simply throw a bunch of it out for being unconscionably one-sided. But if you never get a real court hearing, but instead are shunted into arbitration..... Do judges in arbitration even assess unconscionability?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ziddoap 3y ago
  >because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration Yep, they do (of course). It's in the very first section of the terms and, surprisingly, in all capitals so you can't miss it (assuming someone reads the terms, which, who ever really does). The fun part of their forced arbitration clause is this friendly reminder: >IN ARBITRATION THERE IS LESS DISCOVERY AND APPELLATE REVIEW THAN IN COURT.
- eadler 3y ago
  Arbiters have the same power as judges in court and could, in theory, rule the contract unconscionable. In practice, arbiters are less likely to do so because - they don't realise they are allowed to do so. - they are biased towards the businesses who pay them. - it potentially invalidates the entire contract. - one of the only valid reasons to appeal an arbitration award is "going outside the terms of the contract". If the arbiter invalidates portions of the contract then it potentially opens the entire decision up for appeal. The really weird part of arbitration is that you're allowed to delegate "arbitrability" itself to the arbiter (whom may rule that it must go back to court) I haven't come across any specific studies but this is my understanding from my reading [0] (n.b. I am not a lawyer). [0] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/

by sneak 3y ago

not_your_vase 3y ago

Getting an email sounds quite courteous. Most companies just put an extra sentence some in the footer along the lines of "these terms can be updated anytime without prior notice. check back here every 20 minutes, if you want to know about it, lol" (HN has this too btw - which makes sense for accounts without email. Not so polite regarding the other accounts.)

roughly 3y ago

I mean, the whole premise of end-user license agreements is insane - "By using our product, you, a technically and legally unsophisticated user, assert that you have read, understood, and agree to the 45 pages of legalese that we put in front of you in a 300x200px window, and we assert that we believe that you, a technically and legally unsophisticated user, fully understood that contract, despite our metrics collected on the length of time between it showing up on your screen and you hitting the 'Accept' button suggesting that you're some kind of hyper-optimized button-clicking robot." It's very clear that that construct's been allowed to facilitate rapid business transactions over any particular legal clarity or protection, so I wouldn't expect this behavior to face any additional challenges.

hash872 3y ago

Agreed. Here's my question (because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration): What happens if you try to challenge insanely overbroad terms in arbitration? Because you almost certainly signed away your right to sue. I'm not super-worked up about attorneys putting the most restrictive language that they can in a contract, knowing that in 'real' court a judge will simply throw a bunch of it out for being unconscionably one-sided. But if you never get a real court hearing, but instead are shunted into arbitration..... Do judges in arbitration even assess unconscionability?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ziddoap 3y ago
>because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration Yep, they do (of course). It's in the very first section of the terms and, surprisingly, in all capitals so you can't miss it (assuming someone reads the terms, which, who ever really does). The fun part of their forced arbitration clause is this friendly reminder: >IN ARBITRATION THERE IS LESS DISCOVERY AND APPELLATE REVIEW THAN IN COURT.
eadler 3y ago
Arbiters have the same power as judges in court and could, in theory, rule the contract unconscionable. In practice, arbiters are less likely to do so because - they don't realise they are allowed to do so. - they are biased towards the businesses who pay them. - it potentially invalidates the entire contract. - one of the only valid reasons to appeal an arbitration award is "going outside the terms of the contract". If the arbiter invalidates portions of the contract then it potentially opens the entire decision up for appeal. The really weird part of arbitration is that you're allowed to delegate "arbitrability" itself to the arbiter (whom may rule that it must go back to court) I haven't come across any specific studies but this is my understanding from my reading [0] (n.b. I am not a lawyer). [0] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/