13 ms·

US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

• inemesitaffia 7mo ago
  Terrible decision.
• hsbauauvhabzb 7mo ago
  The email account I cannot access because google decided to ask me for a captcha for which I have no knowledge of, and the don’t have a human help desk that I can contact to prove ownership by providing ID documents? Got it.
  • EarthAmbassador 7mo ago
    Exactly. I don't understand how a community such as this, as connected as it is, can't back channel a message to Google brass to do something about these lockouts, which occur frequently and are unnecessary. There is no way Google doesn't know about them. Gmail is an essential piece of pervasive personal infrastructure, upon which hundreds of millions of people rely. People are losing irreplaceable data for lack of care on the part of Google. The cost of providing a way to prove identity while maintaining security ought to be part of the cost of doing business for Google as it provides Gmail. Surely there are some Google employees lurking who can chime in on this frustrating neglect.
    • hsbauauvhabzb 7mo ago
      The cost of adding a support desk outweighs any potential profit, I would imagine by a huge amount given accounts are ‘free’. It’s not that the executive don’t know, it’s that they don’t care.
      • duskdozer 7mo ago
        If they weren't making enough money from having people use their "free" accounts, they wouldn't offer them.
        • hsbauauvhabzb 7mo ago
          I’m not disputing that, I’m suggesting the cost of support staff outweighs the value (to google) of retaining broken or lost accounts. I’m not a legal expert but it might be a good pre-emptive move to add support even if it’s extremely poor purely to avoid government regulation (given identity is basically bound to email, it might be a unique scenario if someone is unable to identify because of a private company, etc).
  • kotaKat 7mo ago
    The jackasses at Ring provide a clickwrap forced EULA consent in their app update changelogs. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ringapp https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ringapp They slip "By using this app, you agree to Ring’s Terms of Service (ring.com/terms). You can find Ring’s privacy notice at ring.com/privacy-notice." into their app update changenotes for every update.
    • hsbauauvhabzb 7mo ago
      You’ve already bought the product, they don’t care about your feelings or opinions now.
• contubernio 7mo ago
  US law fails to recognize real world practice. It's bad engineering at its finest.
  • thaumasiotes 7mo ago
    The analysis isn't great. In particular, they say "this is a three-factor test, two of the factors are in favor, one is against, two is more than one, so Tile is fine". Normally you'd expect some kind of analysis of how much weight each factor contributes. That said, they do also say this: > we determine that Appellees received inquiry notice of the Oct. 2023 Terms. Evaluating whether inquiry notice has been established is, however, always a “fact-intensive analysis,” Godun v. JustAnswer LLC, 135 F.4th 699, 710 (9th Cir. 2025), and we do not hold that notice by mass email establishes inquiry notice in every case. So the HN headline is misleading at best. (They also note that, while they should consider how normal internet users behave, they can't do this because "there is very little empirical evidence regarding" the question. So they substitute a discussion of how reasonable they find Tile's actions in the abstract.)
    • dryadin 7mo ago
      Naturally this does not apply in every case. But the comment is fair, I updated headline to be clearer.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• treetalker 7mo ago
  Here is a critique of this case which I came across the other day, and may be of interest to you: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/03/ninth-circuit-allows-tos-amendment-by-email-ireland-gordy-v-tile.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/03/ninth-circuit-...
  • dryadin 7mo ago
    Good analysis. Addresses some of the questions here.
  • a3w 7mo ago
    I read ninth circle of hell, but this is clearly about ninth circuit. of hell or elsewhere, I dare not say.
• dataflow 7mo ago
  Fundamentally, the court seems to be treating this identically to a scenario where the user was ignorant and failed to read their inbox. The court seems to be completely disregarding that it was misdelivered into spam. The word "spam" doesn't even appear more than twice in the ruling (one of which is in an irrelevant footnote)! Why the heck is the court completely oblivious to that fact when weighing the facts on each side? You'd think a case hinging on a crucial email being sent into spam would at least mention that fact more than once? (!) The court certainly seems to take into account common practices in every other aspect of the case except that most crucial one... why?! No explanation whatsoever? Would this really survive on a hypothetical appeal? > As Tile users, each Appellee provided an email address during account registration, and should have expected to receive relevant updates there while the account was active. Well yes, they did, but: > Because “there is very little empirical evidence regarding” Internet users’ expectations, the focus of this inquiry is “on the providers, which have complete control over the design of their [apps and] websites and can choose from myriad ways of presenting contractual terms to consumers online.” ...Tile should've expected that its email might go into spam, right? Shouldn't the court at least mention this, even if it doesn't lend it any weight? > Evaluating whether inquiry notice has been established is, however, always a “fact-intensive analysis,” and we do not hold that notice by mass email establishes inquiry notice in every case. At least they say their ruling doesn't generalize...
  • handoflixue 7mo ago
    >> You'd think a case hinging on a crucial email being sent into spam would at least mention that fact more than once?! > Broad did not locate the Oct. 2023 Notice until January 2024, when she affirmatively searched for the email and found it in her spam folder. I think it's rather relevant that she affirmatively searched for and found the email?
    • dataflow 7mo ago
      > I think it's rather relevant that she affirmatively searched for and found the email? It is. There are lots of relevant facts. Did I claim otherwise?
  • 7mo ago
• yread 7mo ago
  By both sides?
  • ruined 7mo ago
    worth a shot
  • jrflowers 7mo ago
    Reminds me of the guy that rewrote the terms of his credit card application and succeeded https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/read-the-small-print-credit-card-user-sets-his-own-limit-then-sues-bank-for-closing-account-8753602.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/read-the-sma...
    • 2Gkashmiri 7mo ago
      Now this is a case that's something I can get behind and fight for.
    • dwedge 7mo ago
      On a much smaller scale I did the same thing with a consulting contract. They sent it me and said to full in my own job description and "check the contract". The laziness annoyed me, so I altered the payment terms from 30 days to 7. Every month they paid after around 15 days and I let it go, but one month they hadn't paid after 31 days and I sent them an invoice for late payment for every single invoice to that date (only 4 or 5). I didn't think they'd pay it but they did
    • Izkata 7mo ago
      > Not content with winning his day in court, Mr Argarkov is now taking matters further and trying to sue Tinkoff Credit Systems for 24 million rubles (£470,000) over its failure to honour the contract he created. For its part, the bank is counter-suing Mr Argakov for alleged fraud. > [..] > The court is set to review Mr Argakov’s case next month. Followup a few days later, they both withdrew their claims: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2013/08/14/man-who-outwitted-bank-ends-700k-lawsuit-a26770 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2013/08/14/man-who-outwitted-...
  • 7mo ago
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• michaelteter 7mo ago
  US capitalism (aka, powerful financial entities driving policy). To be fair, not all people in business or government prioritize "the all-mighty dollar" over everything else. Unfortunately, those who don't usually have principles; those who do often are willing to break rules. This is not an even match.
  • nozzlegear 7mo ago
    It's just an appellate court ruling, not the summary execution of Bernie's last faithful warrior. It can't even set precedent since the opinions are unpublished.
• ruined 7mo ago
  by reading or not reading this comment, you imply consent for me to access, manipulate, and/or assume control of any of your checking and savings accounts, investments, stocks, bonds, options, futures, securities, lines of credit, and real estate that you hold now or may acquire in the future, regardless of my chosen method or manner of access. disputes arising from any such activity shall be arbitrated by me. you may opt out at any time by replying “I CONSENT”
  • thaumasiotes 7mo ago
    You're going to run into problems with the concept of an unconscionable contract.
    • allreduce 7mo ago
      The point is that the tech companies don't. Agreeing to say, forced arbitration with a company, because you signed up for say, their streaming service, is obviously unconscionable. What would be even worse if those TOS said that you have to go into arbitration in matters unrelated to the streaming service. Yet, this is what's happening. Disney used such an agreement (obtained through Disney+ TOS) when a man sued them on behalf of his dead wife, who died in their parks. It's common practice now to have these clauses in TOS, e.g. Discord has it too.
• exmadscientist 7mo ago
  For those not familiar with US appeals courts, this is an unpublished order, which means that it's (broadly speaking; there are subtleties) not precedent and applies to this case alone.
  • lesuorac 7mo ago
    Isn't the fact that it applies to _any_ case precedent? Like if you're a lawyer and you read this do you go "My client will never win a case like this?" or do you go "we should go to trial"? Sure you won't get summary judgement but if the courts rule this way once they can rule this way again.
    • nickorlow 7mo ago
      A case like this is still theoretically winnable, different courts have different opinions, and higher level courts have yet to weigh in
    • patentatt 7mo ago
      Only if it’s in this district, it has almost no weight in another district. And being unpublished makes it a flimsy argument even in this district.
    • kyle-macmillan 7mo ago
      I'm not 100% sure I understand your first question but this opinion is not "precedent" in the legal sense (i.e. future 9th Cir. courts must follow it). Of course, that doesn't mean that it will have zero influence on how future judges may decide similar cases. If a later judge finds the reasoning in this opinion persuasive they are free to adopt it. But they are not bound to adopt the reasoning like they would be if this were a "published" opinion that is precedential. I'm only a law student and not a practicing lawyer so my intuition for decisions to litigate are not strong. That said, my understanding is that there were some pretty notable assumptions and questionable doctrinal maneuvers in the opinion that a future judge might be hesitant to also adopt. An example of each: (1) the court states that users who submit an email during registration assume they will receive TOS amendments by email and (2) the court doesn't seem to distinguish between TOS formation and amendment. These, and others, might be correct assumptions and reasoning, but the opinion doesn't convince me of that, so maybe another judge wouldn't be convinced either.
• p0w3n3d 7mo ago
  The TOS are changing from 1st of June as below: - are your belongings are now ours - please move out of your->our house - you cannot use the service anymore
  • whatever1 7mo ago
    Thanks, outlook moved it to spam. Will auto delete it in 30 days.
    • mapt 7mo ago
      TOS changes: Due to our contract with a Nigerian prince who is seeking to exfiltrate his family wealth, your last month's bill of $14.99 will be refunded in its entirety, and the fee schedule from now on will be as follows: [6 pages of legalese] $39.99 [3 more pages of legalese] You can opt out at any time by sending a notarized letter to our legal department at ___. Should you wish to continue using our service, we will auto-renew you at the new rate on your next login.
      • p0w3n3d 7mo ago
        I had exactly this case with T-Mobile in my country. They'd sent me price increase but I didn't see it and realised only when got charged 3x more for internet I didn't use. Then I answered them with email that I resign, but they wrote that they need my signature and I need to send it by post office or go to one of their places
  • alienbaby 7mo ago
    - All your base are belong to us
• chrismorgan 7mo ago
  > In October 2023, Tile sent to all accountholders […] an email with the heading “Updated Terms of Service and Privacy Policy” […] to the email address provided by accountholders during registration, […] “[i]f you continue to use any of [Life360 and Tile’s] apps, or access our websites (other than to read the new terms) on or after November 26, 2023, you are agreeing to the [Oct. 2023 Terms].” > Broad did not locate the Oct. 2023 Notice until January 2024, when she affirmatively searched for the email and found it in her spam folder. […] > Doe “never knew that Tile sent” the Oct. 2023 Notice and so never “read any revised or updated Terms.” > The district court held that neither Broad nor Doe assented to the Oct. 2023 Terms. So then it was challenged, and the appeals court gets into the weeds: were the Appellees “on inquiry notice of the Oct. 2023 Terms”? (“Inquiry notice” is clearly a specific legal term, I can’t comment on its precise meaning.) The entire thing seems to hinge on whether appropriate notice was given: it seems to be accepted by all parties and case law that “continuing to use after such-and-such a date implies consent” is okay. (This is explored at the end of the document: simply using the app is treated as “unambiguously manifesting assent”, presuming inquiry notice.) The court decides: yes, it was sent in the appropriate way and clearly marked and described. And > Although the email did not say specifically that the arbitration agreement would be updated, reasonable notice does not require the email to discuss every revision. They do say > Tile could have done more to ensure that all its users were on inquiry notice of the Oct. 2023 Terms. Tile could, for example, have interrupted users’ next visit to the Tile App with a clickwrap pop-up notice. […] Because Tile should have known that at least some of its users do not closely monitor email, […] and Tile should have furnished additional notices, this factor weighs against finding inquiry notice. They conclude: two factors for, one against, and thus determine that inquiry notice was received, although Tile didn’t handle things properly themselves, and should have done more. But they avoid setting this as universal precedent: > Evaluating whether inquiry notice has been established is, however, always a “fact-intensive analysis,” […] and we do not hold that notice by mass email establishes inquiry notice in every case. —⁂— This is my interpretation from a brief read of this interesting-sounding document. I’m neither a lawyer nor American. My understanding is almost certainly incomplete. I think I have avoided inserting any interpretation of my own, others can do that.
  • handoflixue 7mo ago
• koolala 7mo ago
  So much stuff is getting put in Terms of Services that have nothing to do with using the service. Games will tell you how your allowed to make fan art in them. If I am drawing a picture at my desk I'm not even in the game.
• bradley13 7mo ago
  IMHO the problem is allowing changes to terms and conditions for existing contracts. If I have a contract with a company, that contract was made under existing T&C. The company should not be able to change those conditions without my explicit permission. Denying me service if I disagree should not be a valid option. I get this periodically on our overly-computerized car: Here are new T&C, click yes to agree. You can make the screen go away temporarily, but there is no options to say "no, I disagree".
  • handoflixue 7mo ago
    If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. Worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke. Also worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably included a clause about these sorts of updates, too. So, right there, you've already explicitly agreed to a contract that can be terminated if you don't accept updates. > The company should not be able to change those conditions without my explicit permission. The legal argument is that (a) you were explicitly notified of these changes, (b) your rights to use the service under the previous contract have been revoked, and (c) you're continuing to use the service. So, either you're stealing their service, or you did in fact explicitly agree to the new contract - "“Parties traditionally manifest assent by written or spoken word, but they can also do so through conduct.” Berman, 30 F.4th at 855."
    • deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    • qnleigh 7mo ago
      > If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract. Suppose you're using a note taking app, and one day they update their terms of service to say that they can use your notes to train their AI. "Continued use implies consent," so you are locked into the new terms of service unless you stop using the app right then and there. You are not afforded the opportunity to decline the new terms of service and continue on the old ones.
• jmward01 7mo ago
  Hm. It seems that use actually goes two ways. They continue to use my information even when I leave their platform. Does this mean I can email info@google.com updated TOS, since I am a party to it I guess, and if they keep selling my info they accept it?
  • kubb 7mo ago
    No, you don’t have the means obtain a similar ruling from the court.
  • internet_points 7mo ago
    No, because of the legal principle of habeas pecuniam (you can't afford as many lawyers as Google)
• riteshyadav02 7mo ago
  [dead]
• tastybberries 7mo ago
  In summary, the Ninth Circuit applied California law to determine that users received sufficient notice. Are other states' laws on notice similar enough to California law for this ruling to be applied broadly? I understand that the order is unpublished so the ruling has little precedential value regardless but I wonder whether the three-factor test is used in other states.
• cbsmith 7mo ago
  Might be fun to take some BSD or MIT licenses and send out e-mails updating them to GPLv3...
  • duskdozer 7mo ago
    No problem - I'll just have my AI copy it to turn it back to MIT :)
    • cbsmith 7mo ago
      Doesn't matter. Under the US Court of Appeals ruling, the agreement to the terms of GPLv3 would apply, at which point all associated software would be subject to GPLv3 terms. Even if one remade everything from scratch with an AI, one would remain subject to the terms of the license.
• soganess 7mo ago
  Is this panel (Gould/Clinton, Nguyen/Obama, and Bennett/Trump) a standard pull for the ninth? Considering how many judges are in the ninth: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit#Current_composition_of_the_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals... It seems less likely to (randomly) have the same panel on two higher profile cases so close to each other: > https://courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-keeps-block-on-dhs-use-of-excessive-force-on-journalists/ https://courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-keeps-block-on-dhs-... So I'm wondering if it is some procedural thing I am not privy to?
• codelion 7mo ago
  the key issue is the interpretation of "consent" when continued use is the only option. aree users truly consenting, or are they simply left with no alternative?
• blitzar 7mo ago
  The court sounds bought, I hope they paid them well.
  • actionfromafar 7mo ago
    OTOH they have a lot inventory of laws to shift before Sundown, so you might get a good price if you act now :-D
• BlackFly 7mo ago
  My personal preference is for laws that promote reasonable limits on "Standard terms and conditions" and then recognizing that nobody reads them and making them applicable regardless of whether people read them or not. Then companies can stop pretending like people are reading the standard terms and unfair terms are just unenforceable. This does require that your civil law defines what unfair terms look like (generally that they are too one sided in favor of the contractor or are surprising given the service provided). Obviously, this doesn't exist in the USA but does exist in (for example) the Netherlands. I would recommend lobbying in your country for such laws since in practice the vast majority of contracts like these that people face aren't actually negotiated nor negotiable.
• throw7384748r 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  • thaumasiotes 7mo ago
    Dog owners are responsible for hospital bills.
  • PunchyHamster 7mo ago
    Sir this is Wendy's
• ForgeCommandApp 7mo ago
  The implications for B2B contracts are significant here. In construction, for example, subcontractor agreements often reference separate terms documents that get updated independently. If email notice plus continued use constitutes acceptance, it changes the calculus for how companies manage contract amendments across multi-party project teams. The practical challenge is that on a large project you might have 50+ subcontractors who all need to actively acknowledge revised terms, and this ruling suggests passive acknowledgment through continued use may suffice.
• apples_oranges 7mo ago
  lol what a load of crap.. since when can a contract be changed by one side only without the other one signing it off?
  • dathinab 7mo ago
    and sending a notification without any (reasonable) form of "has been read/noted confirmation" email is notorious for arbitrarily not being delivered due to "spam/scam" filters misclassifying things
    • DannyBee 7mo ago
      In this case, both users admit they actually read the notice, one after it was sent to spam, and the other it was delivered properly.
  • DannyBee 7mo ago
    Almost always, as long as the term change is not material. At least in the US. Material changes require mutual assent. This case was about whether mutual assent existed. The court said "yes". So no contracts were changed by one side without the other one signing off - the court found the other side signed off.
• Pinegulf 7mo ago
  To be fair, this document says that they updated TOS and by continuing to use the app, you agree. (End of page 3)
• throwaway81523 7mo ago
  I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it again.
• batrat 7mo ago
  I had the somehow the same problem with a mobile operator here in EU. They said just by sending an email I agree with their new terms and subscriptions. It's a gray area, IMO. They could simply terminate the service but who wants that?
• danlitt 7mo ago
  The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable. Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service, or about setting up competing products. It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.
  • jahnu 7mo ago
    Not to mention the unreasonable length and complexity of these things. I’ve seen shorter contracts for mergers and acquisitions.
    • RicoElectrico 7mo ago
      The pro tip is pasting such long ToS into NotebookLM and asking it to list e.g. top 5 surprising clauses (if you ask just about surprising clauses it treats you like an idiot and lists everything)
      • scotty79 7mo ago
        > lists everything To be fair existence of TOS is suspiring.
      • oneeyedpigeon 7mo ago
        But that gives you absolutely no legal advantage whatsoever, so you might as well save your time and not do it.
        • halJordan 7mo ago
          You're suffering from the unfortunate fallacy of "this has no immediate concrete value to my particular concern, so it is altogether worthless"
  • netcan 7mo ago
• lurk2 7mo ago
  The original Minecraft EULA did not have any of the usual boilerplate language to support unilaterally modifying the terms. I had a Minecraft account purchased under this original EULA which was modified a year or two after I bought the game. Around 5 or 6 years ago, Mojang emailed me about changes to their login system that would require me to migrate my account to Microsoft’s system (no doubt under new T+C), but the migration process never worked and they never responded to my support requests. When I tried to resolve it a couple of years ago I received boilerplate emails informing me that the migration period had ended. So if you deal with companies that simply don’t honor their contracts—companies like Microsoft and Mojang—you don’t even need use to imply consent, because they can just lock you out of your purchases and tell you to pound sand.
• iririririr 7mo ago
  well, I hope the companies doing that have someone watching contact@ to cut my acces when I send my version of thr updated terms of service, since allowing my usage can imply consent. Right?
• netcan 7mo ago
  I remember various judges writing ope-eds about being presented a 40 page TOS for updates. Southpark also did an episode. TOS simultaneously became extremly important, commanding CEO attention and became completely ritulized. I'm surprised that the legal profession has tolerated this is escalation of dysfunction.
• krickelkrackel 7mo ago
  Even if it makes things overly complicated sometimes, I like the EU style that forces companies to make people actively confirm their consent, and puts the 'inform' part of 'informed consent' into the company's responsibility.
  • hananova 7mo ago
    Yeah. I enjoy the modern trend of not even showing the EULA on the screen where you agree to it. Those will all be so easy to get thrown out if they ever become a problem.
• shevy-java 7mo ago
  How do they ensure that the email reaches the destination though? I have had emails never delivered to me, not due to my own fault but the service provider filtering it away before I could do anything. It is also dangerous to assume "use implies consent". I am sure there are other ways to ensure terms of use to be changed; if it is a web-application then one could only resume using it if the services were accepted before.
• threethirtytwo 7mo ago
  Do you own a semi-popular product? Just send an email to users saying USE OF THIS PRODUCT NOW COSTS 1 BILLION DOLLARS. And target some user with some money to lose and sue them for it.
• Joker_vD 7mo ago
  Well, just one step more, and we'll have "TOS may be unilaterally updated by publishing the new terms on the firm's web site, it is entirely the user's duty to keep himself up to date, continued use implies unrevocable consent and giving up the right to re-negotiate" legal as well.
  • Terretta 7mo ago
    That's not one step more, that's been how clickwrap is written since late 90s. Cases cited from '98 and '00: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap
• throwaw12 7mo ago
  Why not remove TOS completely, if your provider is anyway forcing new terms? Suppose I start with simple TOS at the beginning: do not use in criminal scenarios Then I change it to: do whatever you do with it, you are responsible for it anyways I can even do this per sign-up, show TOS which makes sense, then next day send new TOS to allow everything
• ArchieScrivener 7mo ago
  >US Court of Appeals Call me when the only court that matters makes a move.
• dathinab 7mo ago
  If "usage imply consent" then couldn't you just write unpleasant TOS updates so that they end up in the spam filter and then argue the user complied. sending email + user using does not in any sane way guarantee that the user did even know about it and if usage implies consent how do you even delete you account if you disagree with contract changes, as that requires logging in which can easily be maliciously seen as using the application as any landing page contains app functionality
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
• Havoc 7mo ago
  Reminds me of the Sony bash.org joke > <DmncAtrny> I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING." <DmncAtrny> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer <DmncAtrny> and run like hell
  • iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
    Naturally, for this to work, one would need to incorporate first so that claim of free speech to be taken at face value.
  • mghackerlady 7mo ago
    I've got a little icon on my desktop bar that gives me a random bash.org quote. God I miss that place
    • 0______0 7mo ago
      That just makes me sad. We'll never see those days again :(
  • CobrastanJorji 7mo ago
    You joke, but if I email Sony customer support with an updated terms of service that says the service is free now, is that equally legitimate?
    • mxuribe 7mo ago
      IANAL but i think Sony would have had to *first* fully accept the terms initially, and then a brick (or many other delivery mechanisms used to convey "notice") with updated terms i guess would be weirdly acceptable...however, other laws would be broken since its, you know, property damage. But what a story that would be! lol :-) I hate all these TOS that always favor a company...but what if alot of society started hurling bricks back at tech companies in a sort of retaliation...not unlike Luddites damaging ye old machines?
• vcfunding 7mo ago
  Trust no one. Never sign or use anything.
• alonethrowaway 7mo ago
  PerplexityAI has been making the rounds of reddit because they had people sign up for 1 Year free of Perplexity Pro via various ways, including linking their PayPal accounts. After a bunch of people signed up, they scaled down what you get with Pro to basically what a free version used to be, and now the useful version of Perplexity is called Max. So you had an agreement for a certain service, and they just rugpull you on it.
• nomercy400 7mo ago
  Can I do the reverse now as well? Email a company a unilateral change in the TOS? Or do TOS's have provisions against that as well? "I do not agree with your new TOS and will continue under your old TOS, and I will continue to use your service". And see when they will close your account down.
  • Noaidi 7mo ago
    IMO, this would make a great court case.
    • PetriCasserole 7mo ago
      I know I'd be listening intently if I were on the jury. I'm a "sauce good for the goose is good for the gander" kind of guy.
      • bell-cot 7mo ago
        > ... if I were on the jury. ... Too bad that v1.0 of the ToS their victims "sign" forced all disputes into their lap-dog arbitration system.
        • nickorlow 7mo ago
          My new ToS I sent them allows me to appoint anyone (including my self) as the arbiter.
          • bell-cot 7mo ago
            That's a nice daydream - but v1.0 gave them exclusive rights to update the ToS or pick arbiters. Along with lots of other "heads we win, tails you lose" stuff. :(
    • Gustomaximus 7mo ago
      Dmitry Argarkov https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2013/08/14/man-who-outwitted-bank-ends-700k-lawsuit-a26770 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2013/08/14/man-who-outwitted-...
• Noaidi 7mo ago
  Gonna try this with my landlord....
• Bender 7mo ago
  When an enforced agreement can be updated at a whim one may no longer feel compelled to recognize law or those enforcing it. Pray this sentiment does not spread far and wide as citizens outnumber their masters and one day the citizens may come to realize this.
• softwaredoug 7mo ago
  The issue is the consumer here doesn’t want to be forced into arbitration. There is legislation proposed to end forced arbitration in consumer contracts like ToS. https://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-johnson-sen-blumenthal-re-introduce-legislation-end-forced-0 https://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/re...
  • philipwhiuk 7mo ago
    It's not a bipartisan bill so I would be skeptical on it's ability get signed into law.
  • dadkins 7mo ago
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/3010 https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/3010 Sadly, this bill has been around since 2007, introduced by the very same Hank Johnson! I would love if Congress would put an end to the forced-arbitration bullshit that so obviously does an end-run around your 7th amendment rights and makes a farce of informed consent, but alas, they couldn't even get it through when Democrats held the presidency, the house, and 60 seats in the senate.
• Noaidi 7mo ago
  JFC, BOYCOTT EVERYTHING! Seriously, WTF? We know the leverage we all have but we refuse to use it because "convenience".
• cogman10 7mo ago
  It's a bad ruling. By it's logic, McDonald's can mail me a contact where they take my car if I eat at their restaurant and all disputes go to their arbitration court, and I agree to the terms by ordering food from them. It's really no different. In fact, in some ways it's worse because McDonald's can send the contact via certified mail. These courts just want to clear their dockets which is why they reversed.
  • cvoss 7mo ago
    > These courts just want to clear their dockets which is why they reversed. You have made no attempt to justify this claim, which, I suspect, you pulled out of thin air, though it amounts to a provocative accusation of significant ethical bankruptcy and judicial malpractice in "these courts" (whichever courts you may be referring to). Do better.
    • cogman10 7mo ago
      > whichever courts you may be referring to The 9th district court of appeals, something that's on the first page of the ruling. Did you read it? That was implicit in this comment thread. And the justification is the fact that this is an unpublished ruling "This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3" That alone is a good sign that these judges don't really think this is a great argument. And, if you read the ruling (which lacks a dissent). It's extremely weak. California law requires that the end user makes an affirmative action to accept a TOS agreement in the form of checking a box or clicking a button. Something the court admits the defendant does not do. They make a lot of hay around how wonderful the email was, but who cares? Just showing someone text does not count as accepting the TOS. They had to construe the fact that the plaintiff used the app later as being an acceptance of the TOS. TOS which include moving the case of stalking out of the federal courts and into the arbitration courts which Tile picked. The fact that this reduces their case load is apparent because if they didn't force this into arbitration the court would end up dealing with all the appeals that Tile would invariably file. Maybe you should do better and actually read the linked ruling before accusing others. My example is exactly the sort of behavior that this court would find acceptable for accepting a TOS change. I'm assuming bad motivations because this is a garbage ruling. And the only reason why they'd make such a ruling is case load. That, in fact, is charitable to these judges.
• JR1427 7mo ago
  The current state of terms and conditions is a clear failure of modern law. No one is reading them, and it would be practically impossible to do so. Signing something you cannot practically read and understand clearly does not mean you actually accept them. How can we wake people up to this absurdity? The law should exist to help society. When it is not helping, reform it.
  • tkel 7mo ago
    What gets enshrined into law is a function of what powerful people in the society want enshrined. And these companies, their executives, and their beneficiaries are infinitely more powerful than individual users. In many ways the legal system is a compromise that companies tacitly agree to in order for legal/police protection in exchange for not hiring mercenaries and rebelling, as they do in some countries. The legal system has to serve their interests, or else powerful people would revolt. When they do revolt either violently or nonviolently, the laws shift and a new compromise is achieved. Or they just choose not to follow the laws and the state doesn't call them on their bluff, or if they do, it is only an entry-point to negotiation. Thus the current state of laws are a continuum of compromises between power players.
    • buellerbueller 7mo ago
      300 billionaire families now fund 19% of US election dollars either directly or via superpac.[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/09/us/billionaires-federal-election-campaign-contributions.html?unlocked_article_code=1.R1A.q8oa.PQ1-wPK5Wgs1&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/09/us/billionaires-federal-e...
  • gs17 7mo ago
    Worse, it's almost pointless to do so even if you had the time and knowledge, since they can just immediately change it after you read it.
• g947o 7mo ago
  If a service provider sends me a bill with <div style="width:1px; height:1px; overflow:hidden; font-size:1px; line-height:1px;"> New Terms and Conditions </div> Does that imply my consent?
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
• ef2k 7mo ago
  This would make more sense if email was 100% guaranteed to be delivered. Not sure if this angle was argued, but just like regular mail, just because something was claimed to be delivered is not enough to prove that it was, hence the existence (in the US) of certified mail and signature return receipts.
  • data-ottawa 7mo ago
    TOS updates almost always go to junk/spam. So delivered doesn’t mean seen, nor having a reasonable chance of being seen. You often don’t determine what goes to junk, that’s decided by thousands of other people and the email provider. Junk folders often auto delete so there’s no recovery.
• jacquesm 7mo ago
  And courts keep wondering why commoners lose respect for the law. I know a judge and had a couple of really interesting conversations with him. We agreed on lots of things but there was one item that stood out for me that made a massive difference in interpretation: to him the map was the territory, he saw the law as the thing that made the world, not the other way around. I always found that to be extremely interesting in that it explains why some of those decisions come across so completely tone deaf. On paper it may all look like it makes sense but in the real world it leads to bonkers effects.
  • quesera 7mo ago
    I think it is necessarily symbiotic. Society coalesces around sets of social expectations (some of which are regulations or laws), and these formalized expectations are a very strong defining factor of society itself.
• hobs 7mo ago
  "and we do not hold that notice by mass email establishes inquiry notice in every case." Basically the case met two of three factors and so they said yeah probably but its not establishing precedent because each case is special.
• shirro 7mo ago
  There are so many advantages to turning off and disconnecting these days. Avoiding TOS is just a small part. There are too many demands on our attention and our wallets and most of us aren't getting more money or time. I cancelled all the family's streaming services in 2025. Everyone adapted. It turns out a lot of things we are told we need, we really don't. People lived without them as recently as a few years ago. A lot of the novelty of mobile, streaming, social media and weird tech nobody needs has worn off and the value has been eroded. There are so many better things to do and experience and you don't need to hand over your privacy or sign your soul away.
  • Forgeties79 7mo ago
    I canceled all of our subscriptions about two years ago and set up a Plex server. I don’t love the direction Plex is going in so I’m teeing up to flip to Jellyfin, but still, it has been so much better than dealing with all of these companies and nonsense. I feel like we can’t even call it “advertising“ anymore. It’s such a misnomer. It’s basically data fracking and psychological warfare to make us all into little addicts. This whole industry built around chasing “the attention economy” is a social blight.
    • Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
      Jellyfin is nice but I could never understand how to setup when all I wanted was to watch videos from server for example. So I used copyparty[0] and used VLC and set a username and password. I recommend copyparty if you just want something quick and easy actually. Just try it out on cheap VPS and just run it and forget it. https://github.com/9001/copyparty https://github.com/9001/copyparty
      • Forgeties79 7mo ago
        The big thing is being able to stream outside of my home network. Running stuff locally is easy enough with basically any system luckily
        • 7mo ago
• flenserboy 7mo ago
  interesting. if this is to be allowed, it must be allowed both ways.
• motbus3 7mo ago
  The fact of changing the terms of fact after you sign up and bought products is ridiculous.
• blurbleblurble 7mo ago
  Is it just me or is the US unraveling?
• jmyeet 7mo ago
  There's a bunch of people here commenting that clearly didn't read the ruling and are saying hyperbolic things like (made up example) "DoorDash can take your house by silently updating the ToS to say if you don't tip, they can take your house". That's not what this says at all. The issue is here is quite narrow: it concerns if cases need to go to arbitration or not or if the Northern California district court has jurisdiction. This concerns a change in the ToS (in October 2023). So, first off, the notion that can enforce arbitrary terms this way is false. There's case law and legislation that the burden on the party seeking arbitration received assent for that and all this ruling does is say that sending the terms for that to the user-supplied email address combined with continued use of the app or website is sufficient to show that. It's really no different to say that if you send someone a letter then that qualifies as notice. If that goes to your spam folder or you choose not to read it, that's kind of your fault. But no, this isn't carte blanche to imply consent for any and all changes in ToS sent by email from continued use.
• cnsrthecase 7mo ago
  If you cannot identify the user, you should not claim in court that the user agreed to your terms of service agreement. If you have not proved that the user who agreed to an agreement was the user using the account, then you could very well be attempting to prosecute the wrong person. It is very possible for one user to steal the account credentials of or impersonate another user. For example, Police officers routinely impersonate other users in order to collect evidence.
• teeray 7mo ago
  They don’t even send you the changes. They just say “we’re updating our terms” in an email and you’re now bound by contract to offer the company your first born as an indentured servant upon demand. Fortunately, the “bury them with paperwork” strategy is waning in effectiveness now that an LLM can read a 50 page ToS and quickly tell me if there’s anything that works against my interests.
• stopbulying 7mo ago
  How did Trump force platforms to allow him to harass and disrespect and incite, despite all of their TOS reserving right to ban such conduct?
  • kevinh 7mo ago
    Because he has power. Putting aside all the people who admire him who he could direct to boycott or harass some company, he can also direct increased scrutiny to companies that don't pander to him.
• dwallin 7mo ago
  So if I email the company a TOS and say that continuing to allow me to use the tool should be considered acceptance of my new TOS that should be valid? Sometimes it's amazing to see the legal contortions people use to justify bad behavior on the part of companies.
• jmull 7mo ago
  The precedents around TOS law is so clearly and obviously wrong. Here, the court applied an “objective-reasonableness standard” to find there was “unambiguously manifested assent”. Which could only be true if we give new, contrarian definitions to the words “objective”, “reasonableness”, “unambiguously” and “assent”. What’s actually happening here is companies have been given the power to write arbitrary, custom laws defining their liability and responsibilities to their customers. It’s a bad situation because it’s not possible for people to actually know what the deal is. It’s not even that good for the companies in the long run, because they all end up coming off as used car salesmen You win a case, but now Tile/Amazon === sleazy. When your product is tracking locations there’s a trust barrier you need to overcome. How much would you trust Tile (Amazon) now?
  • axus 7mo ago
    > When your product is tracking locations there’s a trust barrier you need to overcome. How much would you trust Tile (Amazon) now? Not by reading the Terms of Service at purchase; it could be changed, and ending up in the spam folder counts as assent.
• freediddy 7mo ago
  How can you assume people see their emails? What if it gets blocked as spam? What if a person doesn't check their emails often? Are people forced to check their emails now all the time?
• devcraft_ai 7mo ago
  [flagged]
• kibwen 7mo ago
  So the other way around works too, right? I can fire off an email to a noreply address at any given company, call it "Terms Of The Serviced", and that represents a binding contract into which I can insert arbitrary obligations at will?
• graybeardhacker 7mo ago
  Yet another example of this administration taking the side of companies over constituents. Now that the Consumer Protection Bureau has been dismantled, we can only expect more rulings like this.
• tw-20260303-001 7mo ago
  "By implicitly accepting these terms you shall therefore with an immediate effect pass the ownership of all of your belongings to us, the Evil Company. Non-compliance will be met with a legal action nd we have very expensive lawyers on speed dial."
• chrisBob 7mo ago
  Semi-serious question: can I send a company a letter that modifies the terms and say that continuing to provide me the service implies consent?
  • dadkins 7mo ago
    Semi-serious answer: No, the company only gave themselves the right to unilaterally amend the terms, not you.
• classified 7mo ago
  And the consumers are being shafted again. This decision benefits the companies and screws the consumers.
• everforward 7mo ago
  TOS are in a weird spot. The ruling contends that a “reasonably prudent Internet user” would have noticed and read the email, but I would contend the opposite with the acknowledgement that it would make TOS effectively obsolete. A reasonably prudent internet user gets half a dozen of these a day, and prudence would dictate the obvious futility of reading all of them, much less remembering the terms bound by each service. It does mean that TOS would be almost wholly unenforceable, but that may be a bridge we need to cross as a society. These documents have gotten too large and updated too frequently to reasonably bind the population at large.
• jeremy151 7mo ago
  So, can... can we do this too? By continuing to send email communications, you hereby agree to the following terms of service: I want a Winnebago. Fully equipped, big kitchen, water bed. AM-FM, CD, microwave. Burgundy interior.
• trimethylpurine 7mo ago
  I see a lot of people commenting as if this is a ruling. Is it? It looks like a filing of appeal.
• arikrahman 7mo ago
  Consent should be treated like a default deny-all ACL.
• Arubis 7mo ago
  The greatest effect of decisions like these is to reduce citizens' trust in the justice system.
• edoggie 7mo ago
  I will send every company I use a service my own TOS via email, they then consulted, if they break my TOS I can then take them to court. Problem solved.
• j45 7mo ago
  The interesting thing is TOS changes by email might be more notification than currently is provided. It seems likely that someone, somewhere, will turn LLMs against monitoring TOS' and help customers provide feedback when they want to but might not know how.
• ayaros 7mo ago
  If the Supreme Court justices uphold this, I'm sending the ones who vote yes emails, each with an EULA dictating that by opening and reading the email they agree to send me 100% of their salaries in perpetuity, as well as an initial, single lump sum payment consisting of all their assets thrown into a trust in my own name. If they push back on it, well they shouldn't be so upset about something they agreed to in the first place.
• jjuhl 7mo ago
  Good thing the US courts don't have any influence or weight in Europe.
• pyuser583 7mo ago
  What really makes me mad is one of the plaintiffs was accessing the service - but only to make sure she wasn’t using the service (any other way). They then said: “you are accessing the service, so you consent to the TOS!” That should not count. Nor should a accessing a service to delete your account, file a complaint, ensure you aren’t being stalked, etc.
• rose-knuckle17 7mo ago
  A US Court making a self-referential ruling that sustains the power of the lawyer class? I'm SHOCKED. This should move the exact opposite direction. I am compelled to sign, acknowledge, approve or otherwise indicate that I've read and will comply with so many things that it is 100% meaningless. Furthermore, I assume that whatever legal jargon i'm being presented with benefits the other party and distinctly puts me at risk. In day to day life, just sign "mickey mouse" at every signature box, form or document you are asked to sign. It will make no difference at all.
• Obscurity4340 7mo ago
  This can be avoided by 1) only subscribing to things you cant one-time purchase as local only apps 2) disconnecting any app from cellular data access that doesnt or should not need internet to function (local only) 3) only use wifi for large downloads or limit which apps can use wifi
• kgwxd 7mo ago
  Not surprising considering The Constitution seems to be this flexible as well.
• sahildeepreel 7mo ago
  unpopular opinion - this would never happen in EU. For all the hate EU gets, it has done more for consumer protection that any other government entity.
• Bishop197 7mo ago
  [dead]
• malklera 7mo ago
  The only language companies understand is $$$; if you do not like their practice of ToS, do not use the app. I have never read a ToS. I wonder how many of the services I use I would continue using if I did read them (probably most if not all).