Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
killbot5000 | on: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
Right? A “contract” that only one party needs to abide by is not a contract… it’s an abusive relationship.
palmotea | parent | next
> Right? A “contract” that only one party needs to abide by is not a contract… it’s an abusive relationship.

I think you're absolutely right morally, but I think you've made a pretty important technical error: they're not abusive because "only one party needs to abide...by the contract", they're abusive because only one party can unilaterally change the deal. The companies that make these "contracts" can actually follow them, but since they can change them at a whim, it only really binds the other party.

_alternator_ | root | parent | next
Wonder how a court would treat it if users just reply to the email updating the terms of service on our behalf and claiming that they have accepted the terms by not doing anything. (Eg add stringent PII protection, no tracking requirements…)

My guess is that you would probably get kicked off the service if anyone reads your TOS, so make sure to add onerous cancellation charges due to the user in your updated TOS.

loading story #47312250
loading story #47315917
wat10000 | root | parent
There are plenty of other abusive aspects besides the fact that they can be changed unilaterally.

What I really don't understand is how it's supposed to be a fundamental part of contract law that there's a "meeting of the minds" where both parties agree to the same thing, and there are these click-through agreements that nobody reads, and everybody knows that nobody reads them, but they're still enforceable. I get why there needs to be a general presumption that you've actually read a contract that you've signed, otherwise you'd be flooded with people saying "actually I didn't read that" to get out of contracts they don't like anymore. But that presumption doesn't make any sense when one party doesn't read the contract, the other party knows nobody reads it, and everybody knows nobody reads it, but we all just sort of pretend.

falcor84 | root | parent
I particularly love the pretend play of software forcing you to scroll the dozens of pages of contract text all the way to the bottom before the Accept button is enabled. Because obviously the reason I didn't read through the entirety of these eulas before is because I wasn't sure of how scrolling works.
palmotea | root | parent
The only way they should be enforceable is if they use that scrolling trick, then quiz you on all the terms (with at least multiple choice), every time the TOS is updated.
loading story #47316818
thephyber | parent
If the company violates their ToS, you can take them to court (or arbitration).

It is bi-directionally enforced contract, just not a symmetrically beneficial one.

throwaway27448 | root | parent | next
Ok that's no way to build a functional society, though. Humans are certainly not the entities in this conflict with the time or resources to go to court.
thayne | root | parent | next
But generally the ToS has few, if any, requirements for the company. Usually the ToS is just a list of demands they make of the user in exchange for the service. But the company usually reserves the right to terminate service for any reason, as well as change the serice in any way they want, and change the terms of the "contract" at any time.
avs733 | root | parent | next
>If the company violates their ToS, you can take them to court (or arbitration).

This is my favorite...how exactly can I monitor compliance? No evidence of non-compliance - get tossed out of court. No court order for discovery - no ability to monitor/gather evidence compliance.

The idea that this is even a potential for mutuallity on a TOS is just farcical.

parineum | root | parent
The benefit is the product. If the TOS is onerous, you can not use the product.
mox1 | root | parent | next
What happens when Ford updates the ToS on my vehicle (via an OTA update) and I cannot see the backup camera until I "accept"?

(Insert about 1000 other examples of very awkward ToS updates)

rootusrootus | root | parent
You refuse the update and continue using the car with the features you paid for. The ToS agreement comes before the update, not after.
abighamb | root | parent
Often I see a popup to accept TOS after the update, which was run without me agreeing to anything.

At which time the company has unilaterally denied my access to something I already paid for without seeking my affirmative consent.

In theory I could stop whatever I'm doing, go email the company a brief to the point letter indicating they've broken their ToS and are unacceptably impairing my ability to use my property under the contract that I did agree to, and giving them an opportunity to amend their problem and give me a rollback path.

Realistically the outcome of this is a brushoff and needing to file a consumer protection complaint or get a lawyer.

If the feature is something like "my car" I can't afford that opportunity cost and am coerced into accepting their contract by the way they presented the amended terms.

fc417fc802 | root | parent
I figure ToS for physical devices should be blanket outlawed. They're fraught enough for purely online services. Physical devices keep all of that baggage then add additional questions about whether or not I own physical objects that I purchased.
gopher_space | root | parent | next
So just endless account churn?
throwaway27448 | root | parent
Good luck with that, buddy. Let's see what kind of shithole society you build with this sort of worldview