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

161–170 of 252 posts

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#161

Post by verbify »

mindvirus wrote: post #6

"If you have not notified us... you will be deemed to have agreed..." Is changing the terms of a service agreement with no confirmation/acceptance from the user even legal or enforceable?

In the UK an unfair contract term or notice is not binding. It is defined as "contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/62?view...

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#162

Post by marginalia_nu »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #113
marginalia_nu wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely blame a company for unethical but legal actions.

Exactly what will that achieve?

If you drink a cup of coffee and say "this is too hot for me!", what will that accomplish?

Nothing, as it's a judgement and not an action.

We may act on a judgement though, let the coffee cool down, or avoid dealing with the unethical company.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#163

Post by spacebanana7 »

bushbaba wrote: post #35
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…

The easy answer should be TOS that are not non lawyer readable or not under N paragraphs are not binding. When you buy a house you don’t give 1 signature. You literally sign every friggen page including multiple places on the same page, TOS shouldn’t be different

Most consumers actively don't want to read ToS.

Youtube has a relatively short UK ToS [1] that doesn't require a lawyer to understand. This is impressive given the variety of copyright, monetisation, and content moderation rules it touches.

Yet almost nobody reads it, despite it being promoted on visitation to one of the world's most popular sites.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#164

Post by Filligree »

flir wrote: post #56
Rodeoclash wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally don't have any murderous history to hide I've been meaning to ask, could you please remove the curtains to your bedroom so I can see in? I know you're not doing anything wrong so you've got nothing to hide.

Do you want a law that says people can't publish their own DNA SNPs? Sounds like a free speech issue.

Sounds like a good idea. Free speech isn’t the highest law.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#165

Post by Filligree »

eesmith wrote: post #156
janalsncm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would you target "Christians" or "Americans" or "Hispanics"? You don’t need to have a 1:1 mapping in order to be effective. Incapacitating a sufficient number of a group is enough. Similarly, such a bioweapon in an assassination context doesn’t need to only kill the target or go unnoticed. It’s enough that it is a disease or irritant that a particular individual is susceptible to.

I think you're missing the point. Assuming you have a communicable bioweapon which is somehow able to target based on genetics, and assuming the rest of the world isn't able to defend against it, that still leaves the very tricky question of finding a genetic basis which characterizes any of those three categories in a way which is sufficiently effective. Do you really believe there is way to identify "Christians" ba…

I don’t think you really need to solve those problems to cause trouble.

You just need to think you have.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#166

Post by lordfrito »

How do unilateral TOS changes like this work in practice? If the previous TOS didn't force binding arbitration, can they unilaterally impose this change on existing users? Basically forcing existing users to "agree" to this? What recourse do existing users have?

I don't use / won't use 23andMe, because of issues like this (the nature of the relationship changing unilaterally). I don't like sharing private data, nothing is more private than my DNA.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#167

Post by dimmke »

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…

The problem as I see it is that the internet gives businesses the ability to operate globally, but having to be in specific compliance with different laws from every single country (or group like EU) is really challenging and in some cases the regulations are misguided (I think the rise of cookie consent banners is one of the crappiest things to happen to the internet as a user)

And that does make it hard, especially if you want to start an internet based business without a ton of money. It adds a huge barrier to entry. Whereas existing players can take on the burden of complying etc... further solidifying the position of very large tech companies.

I do agree that basic consumer protection laws are needed, but one overzealous piece of regulation really can cause a lot of problems.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#168

Post by conjectures »

timthelion wrote: post #143
timthelion wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having grown up in the US, my absolute favorite law in Czechia is the one that says the advertised price has to equal the price on the bill. In the US, you get a $20 cell phone plan and the bill is for $60 after fees. In Czechia the price is always exactly as advertised.

Another great on is that text size has legal meaning here. The larger/darker the text the greater the legal weight. So if the contract says two contradictory things, the larger text wins out...

A bold move. I like it.

Re: 23andMe updates their TOS to force binding arbitration

#169

Post by carstenhag »

X0Refraction wrote: post #124
logifail wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Strange, I would have thought a pro rata refund would be allowable in these cases. I'm pretty sure that's how it works with insurance so I'm unsure why a toll pass would be any different.

Because they only sell them for durations of 10 days, 2 months and 1 year. So if you only need to cross the country for 5 hours, they would lose a lot of money.
Post reply on HN