Comment on Thomas 🔭✨ (@thomasfuchs@hachyderm.io) 23andMe just sent out an email trying to trick customers into accepting a TOS change that will prevent you from suing them after they literally lost your genome

chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Siddhartha-Aurelius@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I once successfully defended myself from a lawsuit by invoking a previous TOS. The court allowed me to choose any version of the TOS that benefited me the most. It was akin the doctrine in contract law that ambiguity is always found to be detrimental to the drafter of the contract.

  source

  • agent_flounder@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    🦆 yeah! That’s awesome! Kudos to you for prevailing.

    source

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Contracts are way less enforceable then the writers would hope. Basically the enforceable parts are payment and performance and anything directly related to that. Once you start adding clauses that are outside of that realm they become more and more of a waste of ink.

      source

      • RooPappy@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I'm not sure if lawyers think their words are magic sometimes, or if they'd just really like them to be magic.

        I live in a state that prohibits most non-competes from employers, and any effort to try to get employees to sign overly restrictive agreements can actually result in a fine and penalty. My company sent me a legal agreement saying that by signing the doc and continuing to be employed, I agree to waive my state's protections against non-competes. As if... that would hold up in any court, ever.

        It's a blatantly illegal clause and I could have fought it at the time... but in the end I knew it was totally unenforceable at worst. I'll go after them for the penalty if they ever try to enforce it, or if I leave under bad circumstances. It was more valuable to me to have this document than it is for them to have it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Siddhartha-Aurelius@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You’re right. I just want to add the proper terms for people to search for in case this information helps them. The main matters considered in contract law are “consideration and performance”. Happy hunting y’all. Take down these corporations that do not care for you.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    the doctrine in contract law that ambiguity is always found to be detrimental to the drafter of the contract.

    Anywhere to read more about this?

    source

    • Siddhartha-Aurelius@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I wish I could give you a source but I recall this from college almost 20 years ago. If you read into “contract law” you will arrive there pretty quickly. It’s one of the main principles

      source
• SplashJackson@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  IANAL too, buddy, IANAL too

  source

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I just LOVE that the standard acronym for a lack of legal license sounds like an Isaac Asimov porn parody 😆

    source

    • elvith@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Or a new Apple product… iAnal

      source

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I’m pretty sure iAnal is what the executives at Apple call the accounting department when they don’t get to expense their third pound of beluga kaviar 😁

        source
• brygphilomena@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Even that’s rather iffy too. If it’s been made so long that a reasonable person cannot be expected to read or understand it, it likely won’t hold up.

  Of the courts decide to say, fuck it then it won’t hold up.

  If this goes to a class action suit, I expect the judge to not let this change of TOS affect who is covered under the class action suit.

  This is just a way to make the customer THINK they can’t sue.

  source