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

331–340 of 458 posts

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

#331

Post by matheusmoreira »

kwar13 wrote: post #320
everdrive wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's make it easy for everyone. Here are the terms of pretty much every legal document people scroll through without reading:

> you own nothing

> the company owns everything

> you have no rights

> you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have

> if you ever convince yourself that you actually do have rights, you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay

> you cannot do anything the company doesn't like

> the company can do literally anything it wants whether you like it or not

> the company is not responsible for anything, ever

> the company makes absolutely no guarantees about literally anything

> in case of any damages it's exclusively your fault and you agree to indemnify us in all possible circumstances

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

#332

Post by handoflixue »

qnleigh wrote: post #39
handoflixue wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. Worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke. Also worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably included a clause about these sorts of updates, too. So, right there, you've already explicitly agreed to a con…

> If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract. Suppose you're using a note taking app, and one day they update their terms of service to say that they can use your notes to train their AI. "Continued use implies consent," so you are locked into the new ter…

> I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract.

Yeah, because, as I said: the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke.

So, when they terminate that old contract, it's based entirely on the terms of that old contract. You agreed to this up-front.

What's the alternative? Force companies to offer indefinite contracts?

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

#333

Post by everforward »

TOS are in a weird spot. The ruling contends that a “reasonably prudent Internet user” would have noticed and read the email, but I would contend the opposite with the acknowledgement that it would make TOS effectively obsolete.

A reasonably prudent internet user gets half a dozen of these a day, and prudence would dictate the obvious futility of reading all of them, much less remembering the terms bound by each service.

It does mean that TOS would be almost wholly unenforceable, but that may be a bridge we need to cross as a society. These documents have gotten too large and updated too frequently to reasonably bind the population at large.

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

#334

Post by dfedbeef »

05 wrote: post #178
juleiie wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t live in US or five eyes so I pirate all the stuff basically Scot free. I understand that it’s not so easy for Americans whose internet activity is constantly scrutinized. I’ve had the privilege of choosing exactly who and what I pay. I usually don’t subscribe to any streaming service, but when I do choose to pay for something, my money goes to smaller entities that I don’t actively want to see fail. In my boo…

Surely even the poorest of Americans can pay a couple bux a month for a seedbox?

Surely these tent dwellers have a few dollars a month for streaming content

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

#335

Post by handoflixue »

shakna wrote: post #40
handoflixue wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. Worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke. Also worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably included a clause about these sorts of updates, too. So, right there, you've already explicitly agreed to a con…

Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable. Vader might say he can change the deal at any point, but consumer law generally requires that what is purchased reflects what is advertised. If you don't agree to a new set of terms, because the service is changed from what you purchased, then both parties generally should still be party to the previous. Notification alone, is not enough. Agreement i…

Again, the previous terms allow them to terminate the previous contract, and ... hey look, they're exercising their rights, listed in the original contract, which you did in fact agree to.

If you want to continue using the services, and know about the change, then that's legally, as cited in the actual court documents in OP, an agreement to the new terms.

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

#336

Post by pests »

tzs wrote: post #322
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…

> 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. It also often turns out that when some new way comes along to do something that people like to do, the ways they used to do those things go away. If you don't like the new way you can't go back to how it used to be done. The last physical media video rental store within a reasonable drive of…

While not exactly the same as freeway call boxes... pretty much every state requires any business that are listed on the food/gas/hotel/recreation signs for off ramps to have a free phone for public use.

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

#337

Post by masfuerte »

tialaramex wrote: post #260
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but I have entered into a contract whereby I am entitled to travel to a distant location. I'm not sure why you drape this in the clothing of "legal contract". If the train fails to take you to your destination, they certainly aren't in breach. It seems really one-sided. Why do they need it to be a contract? Will you come and claw back the fare from them with them having no legal recourse?

In the UK, where I live, it's completely usual to treat this as a contractual obligation. If there's a problem which means the train can't take you there, the operating company will do everything reasonable to achieve the offered service, exactly because otherwise they'd be in breach. Example: there are a series of scheduled trains from London (St Pancras) to Nottingham. One day maintenance works meant the line would…

That's a statutory obligation. It works for the consumer because it's not the rail company that gets to choose the terms.

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

#338

Post by javier2 »

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…

Is there some place I can still buy TV shows or movies? Preferably DRM free

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

#339

Post by pocksuppet »

javier2 wrote: post #338
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…

Is there some place I can still buy TV shows or movies? Preferably DRM free

Doubtful, but there are [redacted to comply with the rules]

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

#340

Post by kevinh »

stopbulying wrote: post #218

How did Trump force platforms to allow him to harass and disrespect and incite, despite all of their TOS reserving right to ban such conduct?

Because he has power. Putting aside all the people who admire him who he could direct to boycott or harass some company, he can also direct increased scrutiny to companies that don't pander to him.
Post reply on HN