Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

stackdiary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#131

Post by cjrp »

logifail wrote: post #117
crote wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". There are plenty of European countries which already have some laws like these. When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it. I am guaranteed to have a reasonable warranty. Companies cannot abuse my personal data without explicit con…

> When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it One (unintended?) consequence of this is that as a consumer, you cannot buy an annual digital motorway toll pass in Austria with immediate validity. The earliest your pass can start from is 18 days from the date of purchase. "Customers can withdraw from the online purchase of a digital vignette within 14 days. Taking into account a…

Can't the rental car companies sell you a physical vignette when you pick up the car?

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#132

Post by justneedaname »

houston_Euler wrote: post #58
CrendKing wrote: post #55

What prevents 23andMe from simply deleting the opt-out emails they receive and claiming they never received anything, in case someone did sue them?

Wouldn't the sender have a time-stamped copy?

2 Generals problem

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#133

Post by acatton »

bux93 wrote: post #118
throwaway2037 wrote: post #115

Can someone please confirm: Is forced binding arbitrage allowed in EU/EEA/EFTA? If no, what happens if you are a customer from France or Germany? It seems like this contract is totally unenforceable! A bit deeper, I really wish it was illegal to create intentionally unenforceable contracts. Too many companies create these incredibly scary contracts that no mortal human can understand, let alone know if unenforceable.

No, not if the customer is a individual ("consumer"). Directive 2013/11/EU, article 10 states "Member States shall ensure that an agreement between a consumer and a trader to submit complaints to an ADR entity is not binding on the consumer if it was concluded before the dispute has materialised and if it has the effect of depriving the consumer of his right to bring an action before the courts for the settlement of…

Not only if you're a consumer. There are multiple cases in Germany of Oberlandesgerichten (~= "Circuit courts") voiding arbitration clauses in B2B contracts as well.

Subway (the sandwich chain) is a good example of that. They were kinda screwing their franchisees and were forcing them to do arbitration in NYC, even for German franchisees. This was voided by the northern German "circuit court"[1]

[1] https://www.omsels.info/wp-content/uploads/OLG-Schleswig-Urt...

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#135

Post by ddalex »

saagarjha wrote: post #101
amethyst wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the initial terms of service that you agree to is that the terms can be changed by the company at any time as long as they give you X days of notice.

Some don't even require that! They can change the terms at any time and without notice, or so they say.

I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't further alter it.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#136

Post by NeoTar »

logifail wrote: post #117
crote wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". There are plenty of European countries which already have some laws like these. When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it. I am guaranteed to have a reasonable warranty. Companies cannot abuse my personal data without explicit con…

> When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it One (unintended?) consequence of this is that as a consumer, you cannot buy an annual digital motorway toll pass in Austria with immediate validity. The earliest your pass can start from is 18 days from the date of purchase. "Customers can withdraw from the online purchase of a digital vignette within 14 days. Taking into account a…

Interesting though, that's not what the regulations say - DIRECTIVE 97/7/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...

3. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the consumer may not exercise the right of withdrawal provided for in paragraph 1 in respect of contracts:

- for the provision of services if performance has begun, with the consumer's agreement, before the end of the seven working day period referred to in paragraph 1,

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#137

Post by denton-scratch »

_v7gu wrote: post #103
deckeraa wrote: post #7

The more TOS I read through, the more it seems we need a "common law" solution. (I use the term "common law" loosely here) Something like a couple of pre-defined categories for software services (e.g. info provider, social network, real-world interface) with pre-set rules (e.g. the client cannot attempt to break the social network; the owner of the social network cannot re-sell data to a third party). We have somethi…

How about a "continental law" solution? Usually you can't give up rights you do not have yet, so you can't sign a binding arbitrage clause if you haven't been wronged yet. This is in addition to TOS'es being restricted heavily by laws that define the limits of general terms and conditions (generally contracts that are offered to a large amount of people) and the existence of consumer arbitration committees that make…

> so you can't sign a binding arbitrage clause if you haven't been wronged yet.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Firstly, I take it that by "arbitrage" you mean "arbitration"; arbitrage is a kind of market trading, and "binding arbitrage clause" isn't a thing.

If we're talking about arbitration, many contracts contain binding arbitration clauses which are enforcible by either party from the outset; neither party has been wronged yet.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#138

Post by mcpackieh »

crote wrote: post #110
deckeraa wrote: post #7

The more TOS I read through, the more it seems we need a "common law" solution. (I use the term "common law" loosely here) Something like a couple of pre-defined categories for software services (e.g. info provider, social network, real-world interface) with pre-set rules (e.g. the client cannot attempt to break the social network; the owner of the social network cannot re-sell data to a third party). We have somethi…

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". There are plenty of European countries which already have some laws like these. When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it. I am guaranteed to have a reasonable warranty. Companies cannot abuse my personal data without explicit con…

> Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation".

Literally, so what? I don't understand your point. You can't be under the impression that all laws must be popular with all people, so what does it matter if some ancrap libertarians complain about it? This shouldn't stop the implementation of such laws.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#139

Post by Taranis »

How is it, that after the fact (the hack), can the TOS be changed to mitigate damages from their lack of security? If this is the case, why worry about security then if all we need to do is change the TOS after the fact. No, I suspect a good lawyer or two can challenge this.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#140

Post by Detrytus »

logifail wrote: post #117
crote wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until your country actually implements laws like these and Hacker News starts complaining that it is "business hostile" and "stifling innovation". There are plenty of European countries which already have some laws like these. When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it. I am guaranteed to have a reasonable warranty. Companies cannot abuse my personal data without explicit con…

> When I buy something on the internet, I have 14 days to return it if I don't like it One (unintended?) consequence of this is that as a consumer, you cannot buy an annual digital motorway toll pass in Austria with immediate validity. The earliest your pass can start from is 18 days from the date of purchase. "Customers can withdraw from the online purchase of a digital vignette within 14 days. Taking into account a…

Some online services simply ask you to wave your 14-day return right if you want to start using the service immediately. Not sure why they won't do this in this case.
Post reply on HN