Yeah, it’s time to nip this on the front end though. ToS are such a part of daily life now. They should be regulated to be concise, use standardized consumer-friendly language, and have bounds against non-arbitration and other nonsense like this. This sort of legislation is well overdue.
They can write anything they want in a TOS, doesn’t mean it’s legally enforceable.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Having unenforceable or illegal clauses in a legal contract means the contract wasn’t written in good faith, which should void the whole thing. Regardless of any “if parts of this contract are deemed illegal, the rest still stands”.
It would be nice to see more proactive involvement of the legal system with this, like have some people whose job it is to challenge these consumer contracts and standardize them kinda like how some open source licenses are standardized. Modularize it, so instead of writing out the whole “limited liability” section, they could refer to an established one by name. Then each module can be the subject of study and challenge, like if a more limiting one should come with other compromises elsewhere.
I think at that point, most honest companies would just pick a standard license or contract, plus maybe a few modifications and shady ones will have more trouble hiding shit like this in the middle of pages and pages of the same boring shit you’ve read hundreds of times before if you actually do read these things before signing or clicking agree.
At this point, most contracts should probably be unenforceable because few people actually do understand what they are agreeing to, which is supposed to be one of the essential parts of a contract. So many parts should probably have an “initial here to show you agreed to this” at the very least. But I’m no fool, this is likely considered a feature rather than a bug for most of the people involved in making and enforcing these things.
Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Bingo! It’s written in a “cover my ass” but that ass can get kicked by the courts.
PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Exactly. Anyone can put anything they want into a terms of service/contract. Doesn’t mean it’ll hold up in court.
Arbiter@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Good luck getting it thrown out, that’ll be an expensive legal battle even if you do win.
echodot@feddit.uk 1 month ago
It’s already been decided in Europe. Terms of service have about as much legal weight as toilet paper. Usually what’s true in Europe is true in California as well so I assume something similar has happened over there.
Arbiter@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Ah yes, Europe and California the only two places.
xkforce@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If enough people believe that it is, they’re not going to be as likely to fight things that they should be.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 month ago
even then, it’s essentially paywalling your rights. you need to go to court, wait for the matter to be adjudicated, hope it works out in your favor, run out any potential appeals, all while paying attorneys and not being able to do something you’re legally entitled to do. If you can’t do all that, then your rights are moot.
Sonicdemon86@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s what they want you to think, just start a class action lawsuit. Lawyer love those. Force the companies to respond to the class actions.
DR_Hero@programming.dev 1 month ago
Collective mass arbitration is my favorite counter to this tactic, and is dramatically more costly for the company than a class action lawsuit.
www.nytimes.com/2020/…/arbitration-overload.html
A lot of companies got spooked a few years back and walked back their arbitration agreements. I wonder what changed for companies to decide it’s worth it again. Maybe the lack of discovery in the arbitration process even with higher costs?
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 month ago
You can’t “just start” a class action suit. You need to sue, get other people to sue, coordinate, and apply for class action status. That’s more time and effort than an individual suit.