this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
631 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59653 readers
3289 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 51 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Previous rulings such as Rubber v Glue and Face v Hand make this look like a really strong strategy

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 36 points 11 months ago (3 children)

IANAL, but I think they should be in a far weaker position with their whole "if you don't object within 30 days we will consider you to have accepted". They can't really argue that no positive action from the other party is construed as acceptance of a new contract. If there was continued use of the service that would be different, but no action cannot reasonably be construed as acceptance.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

I think you're going to be very surprised by how quickly they win any trial when they first impress upon the court, "I know you are, but what am I?" Of course, the judge will primarily be swayed by the moment when they call a customer to the witness stand and then mutter, "guiltypersonsayswhat"

You'd be forgiven for thinking that no judge would rule in favor of a company who, post-damages, tries to build a loophole that ties the hands of users who likely will no longer trust the platform enough to log on. But this is the legal version of a bully giving a triple-w (wet willy and a wedgie) to someone who's ignoring them and judges think that kind of behavior is super cool. That's why if you ever ask a judge "what's that on your robe?" as then flick their nose when they look down, they'll simply laugh and you'll be friends forever.

IANAL, but everything I said feels really accurate. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

[–] Saltblue@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I like anal too

[–] random65837@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly how it works, as long as they notify everybody and set a drop dead date on it, usage beyond that point constitutes acceptance. No different than every other passive TOS on the planet.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

That's exactly what they're trying to do, the point I'm making is it won't hold up to any scrutiny. You need at least some sort of positive action from the other party to construe agreeing to new terms. Contracts are always two way agreements, in spite of how many consumer facing businesses would like you to believe they dictate the terms.

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Desperate strategy they're hoping will fool some of the people some of the time.

Trusting complete strangers with highly personal information is never a good idea. Even if they promise to take good care of it, before or after they've already got your money.