Not sure about other states, but in my states you can agree to mandatory arbitration for past incidents.
Comment on 23andMe frantically changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Well, that’s not how terms of service work. You can still sue
butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 1 year ago
be_gt@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Olnly if you opt out of the new terms, at least in us
lauha@lemmy.one 1 year ago
In much of Europe, at least in EU, ToS cannot take away legal rights.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
in order for a ToS to be legally enforcable, the user has to see it. A user cannot give consent on an agreement they did not see, therefor in court it would be 23andMes job to verify that the user was indeed aware of the ToS and acted accordingly. they could not say everyone ops in and defend themselves that way by default because not everyone that was forcibly opted in gave an agreement to the new ToS.
TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Exactly. There’s a world of difference between “You must agree to the terms to continue use of the service”, displaying the new terms before a user can continue, and just saying “If you don’t reply within 30 days we’re changing the terms of the contract without your input”.
WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 1 year ago
You can still sue. Whether or not the suit goes through is different story.
thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Previous rulings such as Rubber v Glue and Face v Hand make this look like a really strong strategy
TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 year ago
IANAL, but I think they should be in a far weaker position with their whole “if you don’t object within 30 days we will consider you to have accepted”. They can’t really argue that no positive action from the other party is construed as acceptance of a new contract. If there was continued use of the service that would be different, but no action cannot reasonably be construed as acceptance.
thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I think you’re going to be very surprised by how quickly they win any trial when they first impress upon the court, “I know you are, but what am I?” Of course, the judge will primarily be swayed by the moment when they call a customer to the witness stand and then mutter, “guiltypersonsayswhat”
You’d be forgiven for thinking that no judge would rule in favor of a company who, post-damages, tries to build a loophole that ties the hands of users who likely will no longer trust the platform enough to log on. But this is the legal version of a bully giving a triple-w (wet willy and a wedgie) to someone who’s ignoring them and judges think that kind of behavior is super cool. That’s why if you ever ask a judge “what’s that on your robe?” as then flick their nose when they look down, they’ll simply laugh and you’ll be friends forever.
IANAL, but everything I said feels really accurate. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
Saltblue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I like anal too
random65837@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s exactly how it works, as long as they notify everybody and set a drop dead date on it, usage beyond that point constitutes acceptance. No different than every other passive TOS on the planet.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Which is to say, entirely unenforceable. TOS don’t hold up in court, but it requires time and money to get to court.
TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That’s exactly what they’re trying to do, the point I’m making is it won’t hold up to any scrutiny. You need at least some sort of positive action from the other party to construe agreeing to new terms. Contracts are always two way agreements, in spite of how many consumer facing businesses would like you to believe they dictate the terms.
kalkulat@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Desperate strategy they’re hoping will fool some of the people some of the time.