3 ms·

If they write a summary of the TOS for a user to read "instead" aren't they then legally bound to their summary?

by dangero 13y ago

runako 13y ago
No. "plain English summary for your convenience" does not mean "instead". Also, TFA is a blog post; the actual Terms are here: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/ http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/
- dangero 13y ago
  Has this concept ever been tried in court? There's an implication there that it's translated into "plain English". They even use the word "legalese". What's the difference between a blog post and a static webpage legally or even technically and what's the significance of that difference?
  - runako 13y ago
    Read the Terms page. No "plain English" there. You're basically arguing that a company can't publish a summary of any of its contracts, anywhere. On its face, that's ridiculous. Heck, most/all mortgages in the US are required to have a summary document (that's the HUD). IANAL but I'd wager good money that there's established precedent here. Also, Google has good attorneys. Do you think that a broad principle like "posting a summary of a legal document binds you to the summary instead of the document" would sneak by? I doubt it. Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs.
    - dangero 13y ago
      "Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs." I'm not under the impression that "programmers" are good at their discipline. Myself included. At the same time I wasn't trying to imply that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing. I was asking for conversation purposes about something that I didn't understand: The relationship between the two documents. You brought up an analogy seeming to show that you know the legal side, so I was asking further questions because I was interested in learning. I think this is more nuanced than you're making it. What if the summary actually contradicted the terms? That summary could definitely be grounds for a lawsuit. I was just curious where that line was.
gizmo686 13y ago
Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. They are not making any attempt for the summary to replace the TOS, rather it is intended as a summary for user convenience. I imagine that the only way that they could run into trouble is if someone showed that they deliberately made the summary with the intention of misleading users. Also, if there is an ambiguity in there TOS, then the summary may be invoked when clarifying it, however it seems extremely unlikely that that would happen.

If they write a summary of the TOS for a user to read "instead" aren't they then legally bound to their summary?

by dangero 13y ago

If they write a summary of the TOS for a user to read "instead" aren't they then legally bound to their summary?

No. "plain English summary for your convenience" does not mean "instead". Also, TFA is a blog post; the actual Terms are here: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/ http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/

dangero 13y ago
Has this concept ever been tried in court? There's an implication there that it's translated into "plain English". They even use the word "legalese". What's the difference between a blog post and a static webpage legally or even technically and what's the significance of that difference?
- runako 13y ago
  Read the Terms page. No "plain English" there. You're basically arguing that a company can't publish a summary of any of its contracts, anywhere. On its face, that's ridiculous. Heck, most/all mortgages in the US are required to have a summary document (that's the HUD). IANAL but I'd wager good money that there's established precedent here. Also, Google has good attorneys. Do you think that a broad principle like "posting a summary of a legal document binds you to the summary instead of the document" would sneak by? I doubt it. Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs.
  - dangero 13y ago
    "Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs." I'm not under the impression that "programmers" are good at their discipline. Myself included. At the same time I wasn't trying to imply that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing. I was asking for conversation purposes about something that I didn't understand: The relationship between the two documents. You brought up an analogy seeming to show that you know the legal side, so I was asking further questions because I was interested in learning. I think this is more nuanced than you're making it. What if the summary actually contradicted the terms? That summary could definitely be grounds for a lawsuit. I was just curious where that line was.

gizmo686 13y ago

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. They are not making any attempt for the summary to replace the TOS, rather it is intended as a summary for user convenience. I imagine that the only way that they could run into trouble is if someone showed that they deliberately made the summary with the intention of misleading users. Also, if there is an ambiguity in there TOS, then the summary may be invoked when clarifying it, however it seems extremely unlikely that that would happen.