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

311–320 of 458 posts

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

#311

Post by stinkbeetle »

danlitt wrote: post #280
stinkbeetle wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Power being disproportionate is obviously not sufficient to void terms - that's not what the comment you're replying to said. It is necessary to void terms when there is a power imbalance. What are you trying to say here? I didn't claim the previous poster didn't think it was necessary, I was just commenting on the sufficiency part of the claim -- sufficient being a subset of necessary. > This is obviously ridiculo…

> What are you trying to say here? I didn't claim the previous poster didn't think it was necessary, I was just commenting on the sufficiency part of the claim -- sufficient being a subset of necessary. Sufficient is not a "subset of necessary". "Sufficient" in this context means a reason that voiding terms is justified. There being a power imbalance does not mean that the terms should be voided. If the more powerful…

No sufficient definitely is a subset in the context I used it. Go back and re-read and try again. Or actually you're getting a bit heated at the suggestion you might be a wee bit subservient to your government betters. Might be an idea to have a nap instead.

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

#312

Post by [deleted] »

rlpb wrote: post #273
seabass-labrax wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a bit extreme? As a counterpoint, I find it useful to be able to pay for a train journey by tapping my card on an electronic reader - no representative of the company is there or otherwise witnesses me doing so - but I have entered into a contract whereby I am entitled to travel to a distant location. And I do want it to be a contract, because the transport company agrees to get me to my destination someho…

There is well established case law on the contract that forms when you buy something from a store (say with cash). There is a contract, on implied terms . I think what we’re talking about here is entering into a contract (or not) on explicit terms dictated by one party where the other party has not explicitly considered them and barely given the opportunity to do so if at all. I don’t think anybody is denying the abi…

[deleted]

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

#313

Post by falcor84 »

wat10000 wrote: post #303
palmotea wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fo…

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 wh…

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.

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

#314

Post by ineedasername »

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…

Hmmm… that may only work if they end up using the brick… maybe just send them donuts, corporate hq, stick a long stream of receipt paper in their with your own preferred use-based tos writing small font and faded ink.

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

#316

Post by RiverCrochet »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #198
Forgeties79 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I canceled all of our subscriptions about two years ago and set up a Plex server. I don’t love the direction Plex is going in so I’m teeing up to flip to Jellyfin, but still, it has been so much better than dealing with all of these companies and nonsense. I feel like we can’t even call it “advertising“ anymore. It’s such a misnomer. It’s basically data fracking and psychological warfare to make us all into little ad…

Jellyfin is nice but I could never understand how to setup when all I wanted was to watch videos from server for example. So I used copyparty[0] and used VLC and set a username and password. I recommend copyparty if you just want something quick and easy actually. Just try it out on cheap VPS and just run it and forget it. https://github.com/9001/copyparty

Jellyfin isn't a simple viewer over a filesystem, you have to make a library and give it folders to ingest. It enforces an artist-album-track structure of media, so if you don't like that structure you'll be fighting Jellyfin more than using it.

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

#317

Post by hrimfaxi »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #295
hrimfaxi wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A read receipt is not proof of receipt but proof that you read it. They are not the same thing. If your office receives registered mail but your secretary threw it away without you reading it, you're still legally served right?

Agreed, but there's no delivered (but not necessarily read) receipt that applies to email so that was closest I could think of that counted. The overall point remains: sending an email, with no further evidence, does not count as proof of delivery (all the way to the inbox).

I see what you mean, and lack of a rejection email from the server is not proof of delivery either.

I was looking to things like state process service laws. It doesn't seem like any type of receipt is required for electronic proof of service in California, for instance https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ccp/part-2/titl...

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

#318

Post by thayne »

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.

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.

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

#319

Post by tw-20260303-001 »

"By implicitly accepting these terms you shall therefore with an immediate effect pass the ownership of all of your belongings to us, the Evil Company. Non-compliance will be met with a legal action nd we have very expensive lawyers on speed dial."

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

#320

Post by kwar13 »

everdrive wrote: post #182
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…

Every single ToS is written to benefit the company, and when necessary, harm the consumer. The answer is to enter into as few service contracts as possible. Use open source software. Control when your software updates. Really, never use the cloud version of anything whatsoever except where unavoidable. (eg: email and such) They feel like the legal equivalent of Calvin Ball. So long as you just stash it in a ToS, you…

> Every single ToS is written to benefit the company, and when necessary, harm the consumer.

If only more people actually understood that.

Post reply on HN