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

351–360 of 458 posts

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

#351

Post by _alternator_ »

palmotea wrote: post #259
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.

> 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…

Wonder how a court would treat it if users just reply to the email updating the terms of service on our behalf and claiming that they have accepted the terms by not doing anything. (Eg add stringent PII protection, no tracking requirements…)

My guess is that you would probably get kicked off the service if anyone reads your TOS, so make sure to add onerous cancellation charges due to the user in your updated TOS.

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

#352

Post by [deleted] »

juleiie wrote: post #265
jmye wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don’t enable them. Let it wither. Then why consume the stuff at all? What a weird stance. "They're all vile and evil, but I like watching shows, so whatever, tee hee - piracy is morally good now as long as I have this invented fiction in my head!"

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#353

Post by close04 »

repelsteeltje wrote: post #115
close04 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The workaround is that each change is a new contract. If you don’t accept the changes the existing contract ends and that’s it. But the power is mostly with the provider, you need it more than it needs you, so you will want the new contract. You can also ask and negotiate terms and the provider has the same choice. If there’s healthy competition you have some power, otherwise you are out of luck.

But that would supposed need to have some explicit text stating the expiration of that contract. An existing contract can't just end when provider feels like it, I suppose?

Every contract has that, either party can exit the contract under normal conditions. You can cancel your Netflix subscription with a short notice period. They can do the same. They use the notice period as grace period for you to accept the new conditions. You accept a new contract with new conditions.

I negotiated my mobile phone or internet contracts again and again, to get better deals. I threaten to leave, they throw a bone. Because they know I have options. Providers who know you don’t will squeeze you however they please.

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

#354

Post by close04 »

impossiblefork wrote: post #141
close04 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The workaround is that each change is a new contract. If you don’t accept the changes the existing contract ends and that’s it. But the power is mostly with the provider, you need it more than it needs you, so you will want the new contract. You can also ask and negotiate terms and the provider has the same choice. If there’s healthy competition you have some power, otherwise you are out of luck.

Yes, you have to enter into a new contract with the person you want a new contract with and he has to actually agree , as in any contract negotiation.

Yeah, “implicit agreement” isn’t a real agreement.

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

#355

Post by malfist »

tialaramex wrote: post #266
malfist wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite what the courts may say When the rubber meets the road, what the courts say is all that matters.

The reason for that phrase is that no, Mother Nature's laws are all that matters, unlike our puny laws, hers are inherent properties of the universe, no need for enforcement because you literally can't break them. A court can insist that up is down, but it ain't.

Where, pray tell, do physical laws of nature come into relevance in a discussion about Terms and Agreements?

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

#356

Post by close04 »

gopher_space wrote: post #150
close04 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the “initial” T&C allows them to cancel your contract unless there’s a minimum contractual period. They can take that opportunity to force you into a deal change. The change is that now just using the service is considered consent. The real problem is that the law allows this power imbalance and doesn’t tip the scales to even it out for the end user. That for me is evidence that the law is made for the companies…

Strike out the parts that you don’t like and email it to legal@ Include a cute little JavaScript cat animation to brighten their day.

I did this to FreeNow (the Uber competitor). No cat though. When they changed their “late fee” that I pay to the driver they if I’m late but nobody pays me if they’re late, and made it implicitly accepted, I emailed them my conditions and said that continuing to provide me a service is implicitly accepting them.

I still have the account. Do you think it worked? I’ll need to test that in court.

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

#357

Post by jmye »

juleiie wrote: post #265
jmye wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don’t enable them. Let it wither. Then why consume the stuff at all? What a weird stance. "They're all vile and evil, but I like watching shows, so whatever, tee hee - piracy is morally good now as long as I have this invented fiction in my head!"

[flagged]

> It's only weird stance if you are completely retarded

What a disgusting response. Please, please grow up.

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

#359

Post by darkhorse222 »

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…

Perhaps this makes a very big difference to you, but I often have to remind myself that iTunes movie rentals are very much alive and function just as they do some ten years ago. No subscription required. Not physical, sure, but a normal rental experience.

Though I do miss old Netflix. That was fun.

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

#360

Post by kmoser »

_alternator_ wrote: post #351
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…

Wonder how a court would treat it if users just reply to the email updating the terms of service on our behalf and claiming that they have accepted the terms by not doing anything. (Eg add stringent PII protection, no tracking requirements…) My guess is that you would probably get kicked off the service if anyone reads your TOS, so make sure to add onerous cancellation charges due to the user in your updated TOS.

In the US at least, the courts would probably side with the big corporation, since doing so seems to be the legal precedent.
Post reply on HN