Yes that will hold up in court, surely.
TikTok requires users to “forever waive” rights to sue over past harms
Submitted 11 months ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
foggy@lemmy.world 11 months ago
echodot@feddit.uk 11 months ago
Everyone knows EULAs are legally binding.
watcher@nopeeking.link 11 months ago
Maybe I’ve missed the /s, but yes, they’re binding, as long as they’re not in contradiction with the laws.
Nobody@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Wait… the Chinese Intelligence-collecting app might not be trustworthy?
occhionaut@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Oh, how my world crumbles around me!
capt_wolf@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This should be a glaring warning for anyone. The translation for this statement is only ever "WE ARE DOING OR PLAN TO DO SHADY, LIKELY ILLEGAL THINGS WITH YOUR INFORMATION! ~[#plsdontsuekthx]~“
intensely_human@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Oh good. Tiktok destroyed its own contract validity with that one. This means it’s vulnerable.
Jackcooper@lemmy.world 11 months ago
So these things keep appearing in contracts but everyone seems to say they’re totally unenforceable so… Why do they keep appearing in contracts?
OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 11 months ago
If it’s not illegal to add, the only risk is bad press coverage, and it might prevent someone from suing in the first place because they don’t know their rights.
Djtecha@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Except in several states if any of the contract is invalid it all is.
NateNate60@lemmy.world 11 months ago
We need legislation to fix this. Something like “should a contract drafted by a lawyer include clauses that they knew or should have known to be unenforceable or void, the entire contract shall be unenforceable by the drafting party”
toned_chupacabra@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Because sooner or later, some judge will decide it is enforceable.
Plus it serves as a deterrent for some from even filing a suit with the risk of it getting thrown out and them out thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Colorcodedresistor@lemm.ee 11 months ago
to cover their asses. It’s like seizure warnings on video games. it should go without saying but. sadly…it has to be said. if a case does arise judges usually create a ‘quasi’ contract that’s usually modified to be fairer for both parties.
UnityDevice@startrek.website 11 months ago
I’m guessing this might be a pre-emptive response to all the Snapchat lawsuits. Basically, parents are suing Snapchat because their kids talked to drug dealers using it.
AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 11 months ago
Because enough people will read it without consulting a lawyer and never do so that pays for itself before the inks dry.
phoneymouse@lemmy.world 11 months ago
How the fuck is this even legal? How can a company put itself above or beyond legal scrutiny.
Stovetop@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s probably not legal, but do you have the financial means to take on a large company like Tiktok in a protracted legal battle?
FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Are those user agreements even legally binding in most countries? They aren’t in my country since you aren’t signing them, pressing agree doesn’t count.
echodot@feddit.uk 11 months ago
As far as I know it’s not legally binding pretty much anywhere. They’re not legal contracts because they don’t fulfill the requirements of one.
beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 11 months ago
They are not a contract by themselves but they can absolutely be used to specify the details of the main contract the customer is about to enter, for example by buying something in an online shop, etc. and that contract is then in its entirety binding (assuming no laws are broken etc).
beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A contract can even be entered by nodding - if your baker and you know that you come for one loaf of bread every day and both you and they nod when you enter the store, that can be a legal agreement. Pressing agree to agree to the additional clauses of the base contract offered by the company can be as binding as pressing the button to buy stuff from amazon, which is to say potentially very much binding, unless any laws are broken.
barsoap@lemm.ee 11 months ago
However, if Amazon included in their standard legalese a paragraph saying that they own my firstborn child that’d be considered null and void over here even if I click “agree”, pay the purchase price for my order and everything, for the simple reason that it’s not a thing you generally find in contracts about the sale of a bottle of fish sauce and a pair of hiking socks, and courts long since realised that noone actually reads fineprint. What they can and do put in the fineprint are things such as payment and shipment procedure details, that (in the case of buying on credit) the delivered items remain their property until paid, such stuff. Also on top of that the newborn child thing is against good mores which is another reason why it’s null and void.
And Germany is a funny case when it comes to contracts, anyway. Say there’s a shop advertising bubble gum for a euro a pack. That’s a binding contract: Unless there’s an obvious mistake (period in the wrong place or something like that), if I am an upstanding member of the general public and want to buy their bubble gum and they don’t want to sell it I could go to court and force them to. Then, upon entering I take a pack of gum off the shelf and put it on the counter. That now spawns a sales contract, which spawns two other contracts: One obligating me, the buyer, to transfer property of money to the seller, and another obligating the seller to transfer property of the bubble gum to me. However, as I put an Euro right next to the bubble gum and unlike e.g. houses bubble gum packets don’t come with registered ownership titles the two sub-contracts are fulfilled on the spot, which fulfils the sales contract, and nobody cares, except jurists and people making fun of jurists.
FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Depends on your local laws. Verbal contracts exist here but they are unenforcable without a 3th party witness and even then very limited and only used for the simplest and most immediate exchanges. Buying and selling is kind of a contract but only handled in courts if it’s between individuals, if a company is involved then it’s the consumer protection laws and agency that handles that. Most obligations and privileges from buying and selling are handled by local law instead of a contract. But contracts on the Internet are only legally binding if you digitally sign it here, an agree button or even a normal signature isn’t binding here for that. Our government IDs allow for online signatures with cryptographic keys unique to each person, that’s the only legally binding online signature here.
A TOS can only be used to enforce your behaviour on that platform, anything beyond that is not enforceable here.
MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 11 months ago
i’ll need that NDA before i can comment
ultra@feddit.ro 11 months ago
!ABoringDystopia@lemmy.world
njm1314@lemmy.world 11 months ago
There’s no way that’s enforceable
DevCat@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m sure they have absolutely nothing to be afraid of. They’re just defending themselves. /s
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 11 months ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
According to The New York Times, changes that TikTok “quietly” made to its terms suggest that the popular app has spent the back half of 2023 preparing for a wave of legal battles.
Perhaps most significantly, TikTok also added a section to its terms that mandates that all legal complaints be filed within one year of any alleged harm caused by using the app.
Then, in 2022, TikTok defeated a Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that the app was liable for a child’s death because its algorithm promoted a deadly “Blackout Challenge.”
The same year, a bipartisan coalition of 44 state attorneys general announced an investigation to determine whether TikTok violated consumer laws by allegedly putting young users at risk.
As new information becomes available to consumers through investigations and lawsuits, there are concerns that users may become aware of harms that occurred before TikTok’s one-year window to file complaints and have no path to seek remedies.
One lawyer representing more than 1,000 guardians and minors claiming TikTok-related harms, Kyle Roche, told the Times that he is challenging TikTok’s updated terms.
The original article contains 748 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Gigan@lemmy.world 11 months ago
These companies should be fined just for having the audacity to make people sign ridiculous end user agreements like this.
Nilz@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
It’s like the olden times where illiterate people were asked to sign a contract that waived their rights and possessions while they were being told something else entirely.
ABCDE@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s just modern day Russia whereby asylum seekers were sent to the Finnish border, not let in, then when turning back round were given documents to sign by Russia which they were told meant they would be allowed to stay, but actually meant they were being shipped off to Ukraine to fight.
4am@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Something old (contract fraud), something new (social media), something borrowed (your data), something blew (this fucking situation we’ve gotten ourselves into)
Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org 11 months ago
It’s like a potentially abusive spouse, asking their future spouse to waive all rights to seek legal recourse if they beat them in the future. This crap shouldn’t be legal.