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

US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 458 posts

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#281

Post by sixothree »

carefree-bob wrote: post #79
bradley13 wrote: post #24

IMHO the problem is allowing changes to terms and conditions for existing contracts. If I have a contract with a company, that contract was made under existing T&C. The company should not be able to change those conditions without my explicit permission. Denying me service if I disagree should not be a valid option. I get this periodically on our overly-computerized car: Here are new T&C, click yes to agree. You can…

The other side of this is that companies do want to change their T&C from time to time, so what do they do, force you to quit and then sign up again? That adds a lot of friction. Or do they tag things and say "Customer X signed up on this date, so he is bound by T&C number 12, whereas this other customer signed up a year later and is bound by T&C number 13". That seems unwieldy since there is a common infrastructure.…

> force you to quit and then sign up again? If they change the price, YES!

Otherwise, force the user to accept the new terms affirmatively. Then offer to refund any money if the user does not.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#282

Post by parineum »

juleiie wrote: post #240
gruez wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think people who make it, producers, are extremely corrupted friends of Jeffrey Epstein with each one sooner or later turning out to be a sex offender. This applies to everything that comes out of Hollywood?

This applies to every big corpo that exists and especially degenerate cesspit of Hollywood. Big corporation - just inhumane greed beyond mortal comprehension. Holywood - not only greed but also complete moral decay It would even apply twice if it could but you cannot really steal a movie twice. Unfortunately.

These greedy, inhumane and morally decayed people produce content that you enjoy consuming after stealing. What does that say about you?

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#283

Post by causal »

nomercy400 wrote: post #109

Can I do the reverse now as well? Email a company a unilateral change in the TOS? Or do TOS's have provisions against that as well? "I do not agree with your new TOS and will continue under your old TOS, and I will continue to use your service". And see when they will close your account down.

Was wondering this too. Not to mention adding TOS to your own sites that get used by bots and scrapers.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#285

Post by mox1 »

parineum wrote: post #278
thephyber wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The benefit is the product. If the TOS is onerous, you can not use the product.

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)

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#286

Post by joe_mamba »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #257
ahartmetz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of these cases like gun crime where: USA: There is no solution! Rest of world: slightly embarrassed look There are legal terms and concepts like good faith, expected and unexpected terms, reasonable expectations, abuse of a legally unsophisticated party and so on. In other countries, neither the fiction that everyone reads or is expected to read the 10-page "dining contract" of a restaurant exists nor is…

Is it your contention that the rest of the world has solved the case of terms of service? That the alleged solution is restricting possible clauses to those OP enumerated? Or that USA does not have any limits or regulations around fairness in contract law? I'm fascinated. > This is one of these cases like gun crime where: This is going off topic but I don't think that's going to go anywhere interesting, so why not...…

>That is perhaps the most recent and dramatic case of a solution to gun crime being found.

We can't apply the El Salvador solution because what about the human rights of the violent criminals?!

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#287

Post by thomastjeffery »

bradley13 wrote: post #24

IMHO the problem is allowing changes to terms and conditions for existing contracts. If I have a contract with a company, that contract was made under existing T&C. The company should not be able to change those conditions without my explicit permission. Denying me service if I disagree should not be a valid option. I get this periodically on our overly-computerized car: Here are new T&C, click yes to agree. You can…

> that contract was made under existing T&C

That's a very roundabout way of saying it. The T&C is a contract. They should not be able to pretend you agreed to a new contract.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#288

Post by tedggh »

shirro wrote: post #166

There are so many advantages to turning off and disconnecting these days. Avoiding TOS is just a small part. There are too many demands on our attention and our wallets and most of us aren't getting more money or time. I cancelled all the family's streaming services in 2025. Everyone adapted. It turns out a lot of things we are told we need, we really don't. People lived without them as recently as a few years ago. A…

As an avid reader and outdoors enthusiast, I feel there’s a lot of value on “wasting” time with a movie or limited series.

Absolutely, there are so many better things to do and experience than watching TV, but no one should be stressing out about maximizing their time doing them.

In fact, going against that mindset once in a while, and allowing yourself to not do the thing you think you should be doing, is an experience by itself.

Also, it doesn’t need to be a complete waste of time. If you like history or art, there’s a lot of content both as fiction and non fiction that you would find intellectually stimulating (I highly recommend Criterion for this)

One cold November night my wife picked a movie called Babette's Feast. I absolutely loved the photography. I did some research and found it was inspired by Danish painter Hammershoi, which I never heard of. For Christmas, my wife gave me a beautifully printed, limited edition of his work by the Jacquemart museum in Paris.

Later this year we plan to make a stop in Copenhagen on our way to Sweden to visit friends, so we can see Hammershoi work at the museums.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#289

Post by CobrastanJorji »

Havoc wrote: post #100

Reminds me of the Sony bash.org joke > I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING." And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer…

You joke, but if I email Sony customer support with an updated terms of service that says the service is free now, is that equally legitimate?

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#290

Post by throwaway27448 »

thephyber wrote: post #256
killbot5000 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? A “contract” that only one party needs to abide by is not a contract… it’s an abusive relationship.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN