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

41–50 of 458 posts

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

#41

Post by BlackFly »

My personal preference is for laws that promote reasonable limits on "Standard terms and conditions" and then recognizing that nobody reads them and making them applicable regardless of whether people read them or not. Then companies can stop pretending like people are reading the standard terms and unfair terms are just unenforceable. This does require that your civil law defines what unfair terms look like (generally that they are too one sided in favor of the contractor or are surprising given the service provided).

Obviously, this doesn't exist in the USA but does exist in (for example) the Netherlands. I would recommend lobbying in your country for such laws since in practice the vast majority of contracts like these that people face aren't actually negotiated nor negotiable.

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

#42

Post by dwedge »

jrflowers wrote: post #14
yread wrote: post #5

By both sides?

Reminds me of the guy that rewrote the terms of his credit card application and succeeded https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/read-the-sma...

On a much smaller scale I did the same thing with a consulting contract. They sent it me and said to full in my own job description and "check the contract". The laziness annoyed me, so I altered the payment terms from 30 days to 7. Every month they paid after around 15 days and I let it go, but one month they hadn't paid after 31 days and I sent them an invoice for late payment for every single invoice to that date (only 4 or 5). I didn't think they'd pay it but they did

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

#43

Post by Barbing »

close04 wrote: post #35
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…

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…

>just send them a new T&C every day and say delivering the service is consent.

That’s domestic terrorism (charges)

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

#44

Post by a3w »

treetalker wrote: post #15

Here is a critique of this case which I came across the other day, and may be of interest to you: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/03/ninth-circuit-...

I read ninth circle of hell, but this is clearly about ninth circuit. of hell or elsewhere, I dare not say.

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

#46

Post by Frieren »

close04 wrote: post #35
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…

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…

> That for me is evidence that the law is made for the companies (probably by the companies too).

Yes, everything is becoming more and more convenient for big corporations while individual citizens need to navigate an ever increasingly complex world. Laws are designed to protect capital not individual citizens nor society. That never ends well.

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

#47

Post by thaumasiotes »

ruined wrote: post #11

by reading or not reading this comment, you imply consent for me to access, manipulate, and/or assume control of any of your checking and savings accounts, investments, stocks, bonds, options, futures, securities, lines of credit, and real estate that you hold now or may acquire in the future, regardless of my chosen method or manner of access. disputes arising from any such activity shall be arbitrated by me. you ma…

You're going to run into problems with the concept of an unconscionable contract.

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

#48

Post by ForgeCommandApp »

The implications for B2B contracts are significant here. In construction, for example, subcontractor agreements often reference separate terms documents that get updated independently. If email notice plus continued use constitutes acceptance, it changes the calculus for how companies manage contract amendments across multi-party project teams. The practical challenge is that on a large project you might have 50+ subcontractors who all need to actively acknowledge revised terms, and this ruling suggests passive acknowledgment through continued use may suffice.
Post reply on HN