Live data from Hacker News

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

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

391–400 of 458 posts

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

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Taxis for a 2+ hour drive? That's wild. In the US when this happens they just charter a bus or three.

Not the whole London to Nottingham, just the last maybe 20-30 minutes from where the line was blocked overnight for works. And they obviously do often charter buses, in fact my local train operator was a bus company as well so their buses got used for this type of event because it's just internal accounting. However in the example I gave above that operating company had chosen not to hire a larger vehicle because they anticipated low volume. Six taxis is probably cheaper than a coach. A hundred not so much.

They had bad luck, a different train hit a person (almost certainly a suicide, it is possible to get struck by accident but it's not common) and delayed a large amount of passengers like me who were going to London to get that Nottingham train, people delayed by that incident from their last-but-one train [which ran normally all the way to Nottingham] filled this slow, train that couldn't get all the way instead. A really smart organized team in St Pancras could have realised way too many people are boarding that last train and warned their colleagues, but realistically it was probably already too late to organise a better response even if somehow an incredibly joined-up organisation had reacted to the problem.

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

#392
A US Court making a self-referential ruling that sustains the power of the lawyer class? I'm SHOCKED.

This should move the exact opposite direction. I am compelled to sign, acknowledge, approve or otherwise indicate that I've read and will comply with so many things that it is 100% meaningless. Furthermore, I assume that whatever legal jargon i'm being presented with benefits the other party and distinctly puts me at risk. In day to day life, just sign "mickey mouse" at every signature box, form or document you are asked to sign. It will make no difference at all.

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

#393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it. Or Disney telling you they are exempt from killing someone in their theme park restaurants because you signed up to Disney+… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

Except it is a stretch to say it is "their theme park restaurant". This story was dramatically oversimplified in the media and Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be. The argument was not "they agreed to a EULA 5 years ago and therefore mandatory arbitration in all disputes with Disney". This is a privately owned restaurant at a glorified shopping mall within the larger Wa…

Except that the theme park did present the restaurant as being part of the park, which makes it quite reasonable to hold the theme park responsible financially for the entire debacle.

If a chainsaw juggler on a cruise ship cuts my dad in half while he's sleeping on his deck chair, "That entertainer was not a direct employee of Royal Caribbean" will hold exactly zero water in determining liability.

All arguments were complete shite.

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

#394
This can be avoided by 1) only subscribing to things you cant one-time purchase as local only apps 2) disconnecting any app from cellular data access that doesnt or should not need internet to function (local only) 3) only use wifi for large downloads or limit which apps can use wifi

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

#395

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…

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.

Obviously never true anywhere on Earth.

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

#396
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…

>Everyone adapted.

I like the phrasing of this because it tells us nothing of whether your family liked the change (or felt better off with it) or not. You can adapt to a lot.

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

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never run Plex, or Jellyfin for that matter. There's a video share on my NAS. I point Infuse on Apple TV 4K's at it. It works, and cleanly. Downsides: you have to pay for Infuse Pro to play some formats and deal with some audio codecs. It's IIRC $17 for a year, though, so pretty reasonable for continued development. Your non-technical friends and family can't do the initial setup themselves (it's shared over Tai…

It's just weird that it's this complicated. We should get a static IP from our DNS. We should use standard open source streaming conversion mechanisms. It should go over basic video codecs. Lately I've been working towards just using a webserver to host video files. Sure, it's not adaptive, but for goodness sakes it's simple.

Well, my ISP doesn't support IPv6 for home use, at all. My IPv4 is essentially static - I can't recall the last time it changed - but while Tailscale is a single point of failure for my home network security, it's also one that I can expect to be updated faster than practically any other package.

VLC will play anything I throw at it, but it's not going to go and fetch all the metadata for me and present it in a nice way to the non-technically-oriented users around.

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

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just weird that it's this complicated. We should get a static IP from our DNS. We should use standard open source streaming conversion mechanisms. It should go over basic video codecs. Lately I've been working towards just using a webserver to host video files. Sure, it's not adaptive, but for goodness sakes it's simple.

yeah I'm on the same boat. I just have an old laptop hooked up to the tv, which can access a shared folder on my main computer that has all the media. I control it with a wireless mouse, and get an actual fast UI with a web browser instead of the usability nightmare that is a smart tv UI. this is all Windows though, I guess it's possible to have Linux access a Windows shared folder, I've been meaning to look into it…

> I guess it's possible to have Linux access a Windows shared folder

It is, and while it's not hard, this was really my first experience running Linux in a long while, and boy do I now understand why people did not like systemd when it came out. It's not bad, per se, but it's not just "stick a line in /etc/fstab". However, even Copilot can put together a couple of scripts for you.

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

#399

lol what a load of crap.. since when can a contract be changed by one side only without the other one signing it off?

Almost always, as long as the term change is not material. At least in the US.

Material changes require mutual assent. This case was about whether mutual assent existed. The court said "yes".

So no contracts were changed by one side without the other one signing off - the court found the other side signed off.

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

#400

lol what a load of crap.. since when can a contract be changed by one side only without the other one signing it off?

and sending a notification without any (reasonable) form of "has been read/noted confirmation" email is notorious for arbitrarily not being delivered due to "spam/scam" filters misclassifying things

In this case, both users admit they actually read the notice, one after it was sent to spam, and the other it was delivered properly.
Post reply on HN