The courts should not tolerate hidden clauses in pages of legalese that literally no one, not even lawyers read. If you have a misleading claim advertised that the buyer is more likely to see, then your hidden clause is invalidated.
Comment on Sony is erasing digital libraries that were supposed to be accessible “forever”
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months agoThe secret is that despite everything on the website saying “buy” to the end user when they’re putting in their credit card information, somewhere 18 pages down in the TOS you agree to when making an account there is a provision that they reserve the right to revoke access at any time. It’s not truly owning content, it was never YOUR contract. It’s theirs.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 7 months ago
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 7 months ago
Yeah, I don’t see why they tolerate it. Judges are people too and they know damn well that people can’t be expected to read every TOS they’re asked to agree to.
grue@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The secret isn’t that the fine print somehow makes it okay.
The secret is that it really is blatantly illegal false advertising, but the regulatory-captured FTC isn’t doing it’s damn job and the companies know it.