Submitted â¨â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago⊠by â¨PoseidonsWake@lemmy.world⊠to â¨technology@lemmy.worldâŠ
https://hachyderm.io/@thomasfuchs/111531294441702837
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 ro thieves.
Do what it says in the email and email arbitrationoptout@23andme.com that you do not agree with the new terms of service and opt out of arbitration.
If you have an account with them, do this right now.
Hereâs an email template for what to write: www.patreon.com/posts/94164861
âBut they clicked the imaginary button, your Honor. How can they rights ?â
This just blows my fucking mind. Same thing happened with Crunchyroll, apparently I could have been part of a class action lawsuit when it was found out that they were selling users data. But I didnât hear about it, didnât get any letters and didnât see the email. The date came and went. Because I didnât âtake actionâ in time I apparently forfeit my right to my piece of the settlement AND to sue.
HOW THE FUCK IS THAT LEGAL. How can you make the least amount of effort to notify someone after illegally fucking up their life, then when they donât respond (because they didnât see the notification or whatever), say, âwell legally that means theyâre ok with it, and canât do anything in the futureâ
What the fuck
It depends, it may not be. TOS are not as ironclad as they appear.
The class actions Iâve been part of have said that if I want to retain the right to sue then I have to opt out of the class action. I donât think itâs possible to be force-opted in, and in that case you should retain the ability to sue.
Iâve only been in 3 or 4 though, so I donât know if thatâs representative of all class actions.
Send their legal team an email telling them youâre going to update the terms unless you hear from them.
Damn I forgot about that Crunchyroll class action. Thanks for reminding me. I got those emails too but I have until the 12th. Itâs only $30 but thatâs like two Five Guys meals soâŚ
Technically a contract can have anything in it that both parties agree to, unless some are all of those provisions are actively illegal. I would agree that assumed agreement should be illegal. You could probably fight this in court, make the argument that this is a material change to the contract what you did not agree to and would not have agreed to had you been aware of it. But that costs money and lawyers and time.
âThey lost my genomeâ is certainly a 2023 phrase.
Itâs only useful to US assurance companies.
If anyone wants my genetic information just come to my door and Iâll supply it to you directly đ
đđŚ
Saw this in my inbox and totally thought it was for this comment lol
I feel like the TOS you are subject to is the one you signed when you first used the service. Unless you have been constantly using their service, I canât see how a new TOS would affect you. I could be WAAY off here because IANAL, but a company canât just retroactively change the TOS for customers without some kind of action taken by the customers under the new TOS.
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.
đŚ yeah! Thatâs awesome! Kudos to you for prevailing.
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?
IANAL too, buddy, IANAL too
I just LOVE that the standard acronym for a lack of legal license sounds like an Isaac Asimov porn parody đ
Even thatâs rather iffy too. If itâs been made so long that a reasonable person cannot be expected to read or understand it, it likely wonât hold up.
Of the courts decide to say, fuck it then it wonât 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 canât sue.
I had them destroy my sample and delete my data the week they went public, so Iâm glad weâve finally reached the âI told you soâ phase of this.
How can you be sure they did what you requested? How can you verify?
If I was that guy I would dig for the leak and search through it. If I would find even a shred of my data, thatâs a lawsuit.
Isnât this illegal?
Of course, and in some places a TOS isnât even legally binding.
No, but that doesnât mean itâs legally enforceable.
You canât sign away negligence in a contract.
Yes but theyâll just outspend the average person in court. Itâs a fucked design
The real question is why would you put your genome into the hands of a company without a compelling reason beyond âThis sounds coolâ
So I can prove that Iâm 3% black and get my word pass. /s
It being cool is a compelling reason.
They didnât lose it, they know exactly where it went
Piracy is theft in the eyes of the law. So because the hackers copied it, your data was lost and you should be compensated for the loss.
So, our main interactions happened in the past, your fault and abuse of me happened in the past, and now, in the present, you can slip a little âgo out of your way or the legal terms governing our interactions in the past will be alteredâ clause in an email, and itâs all legal?
Iâd argue the the interactions and faults of the past should be governed by the agreement we had in the past.
Did they lose anyoneâs genome? Thatâs not whatâs been reported. They certainly lost customer information and this is definitely a super shitty move to trick you into waiving some rights, but Iâve seen no reporting that says they lost full DNA information.
They have disabled the download data button and refuse to provide customers with a copy of their own data. I have been trying to get a copy of my data for over a month and they just tell me theyâll consider re-enabling the button in the future.
I would bet money (not much, relax) that they got their shit hacked and locked down by ransomware at least, if not also extracted for sale by the same black hat.
I was under the impression that it was compromised logins of users that were used to get into accounts, afaik they werenât actually hacked.
If you were dumb enough to pay someone to take your genome for profit, a second grift is just icing on the cake.
How is this a trick?
They sent an email that seems standard and claims to be beneficial. I would have ignored it if I wasnât aware of the current situation
Wew, ignoring emails is a trick now?
What would you call it, unmitigated benevolence?
Ok now that I have that out of my system, letâs seeâŚ
trick /'trik/ noun
scheme /ËskÄm/ noun
especially : a crafty or secret one
outwit /auĚt-Ëwit/ verb
What we have, in the immediate wake of a massive security breach, mind you, is an attempt to benefit the company by getting the better of the customers, writ large, by altering how disputes are handled. By taking the unusual step of requiring explicit opt-out from the new TOS within a short timeframe, they make it more likely that customers will âacceptâ the TOS without even realizing it and be in a worse position as a result.
That qualifies as an act intended to outwit customers.
Or, to put it another way, if they had contacted customers and asked for an opt in for the new TOS, nobody would consider that an attempt to outwit.
So, yeah, this is a trick to further fuck over customers who are already victims of the companyâs poor security practices.
that customers will âacceptâ the TOS without even realizing it
Somebody â preferably a goddamn judge â really needs to start explaining to all these sociopathic corporate lawyers thatâŚ
It is a legit question. Usually you donât have to pro-actively inform anyone that you disagree with anything, TOS included. Thatâs just what companies want you to believe since it benefits them greatly.
No idea though how things in the U.S. are handled and if there are differences in certain states. It would surprise me though if that was actually an enforcable legal principle.
I agree it doesnât seem like a trick. Thatâs the catchy headline right? But no word on if the changes apply into the past or itâs just lawyers trying to protect themselves for next time. Itâs an email with new TOS and the ability to opt out.
No itâs not good for users and yes itâs a shitty 30 day notice in an email even I didnât read yet because Iâm so irritated with them.
But reading the patron post didnât tell me how it was a trick and neither did the mastodon link. However the replies were good and helped fill me in on some details I wasnât aware of yet on the actual breach. hachyderm.io/@thomasfuchs/111531294441702837
Not sure why the down votes on a perfectly acceptable question.
bruh
Thanks for sharing this
Then it should have been upvoted for reality.
Iâd pass this around if the writer knew another adverb. Iâm tired of âlitchallyâ people.
Ok but is fuchs a real last name lol
Good fuck my guy, lay off the casual racism
Whoa bud 4chan is the other way
tty5@lemmy.world â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
I donât see how an email that has no proof of delivery (could have ended in spam for example) would be legally binding.
Accepting a ToS update simply by virtue of no action is also questionable unless provisions permitting that were in the ToS youâve accepted and even then it would not work in the European Union, because thatâs listed in the forbidden clauses registry.
FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
I thought the same thing when my Disney+ rate went up a couple months ago and I couldnât find the email warning about it in my inbox or spam folders.
Why do we let these companies get away with everything? If the rates are going up, show me in the app/ui. Make it opt in. Disable my ability to watch anything until I approve the increase in spend. It should be illegal to just change the terms of a contract and say âI sent you an email.â
grue@lemmy.world â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
Even it being âquestionableâ is a fucking outrage â it should be so blatantly, obviously, disallowed that a lawyer should lose their license just for proposing it!
gian@lemmy.grys.it â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
Nope. The silent consent concept is a nice thing, it solve a lof of problems both for companies and private citizens. I could offer plenty of examples of the correct use of the concept that solve problems.
23andMe is just doing a big dick move trying to avoid to be sued for the leak.
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
My ISP, phone company, bank, insurance company and everyone else send me TOS related messages from time to time. Usually, the message is something along the lines of: âWeâre altering the deal. Pray we donât alter it any furtherâ
EatYouWell@lemmy.world â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
Youâd think that, but you know those âdonât remove or warranty is voidâ stickers on stuff? Theyâre illegal.
tty5@lemmy.world â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
Every time an ISP does that around here they send you a notification via certified mail with a prepaid return envelope and a service cancellation form included - you can decide to not continue using the service without any early cancellations fees etc.
If they fail to do that they get fined by consumer protection agency, are required to return any fees they charged based on the change and they get to start over - send a notification that follows the rules resetting the clock for those who opt to cancel
Kbobabob@lemmy.world â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
Why would you need proof of delivery? The original email gives instructions. You follow those instructions and can prove you did so with date and timestamps. I donât see the issue.
NAK@lemmy.world â¨11⊠â¨months⊠ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repudiation
Legally you have to be able to prove someone received a thing. Itâs why you get served when youâre sued. An agent physically hands you the complaint (or whatever theyâre called). If the papers were put in the mail the person being sued could say they never received them.