this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
493 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59314 readers
4603 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 189 points 11 months ago (2 children)

These companies should be fined just for having the audacity to make people sign ridiculous end user agreements like this.

[–] Nilz@sopuli.xyz 52 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's like the olden times where illiterate people were asked to sign a contract that waived their rights and possessions while they were being told something else entirely.

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's just modern day Russia whereby asylum seekers were sent to the Finnish border, not let in, then when turning back round were given documents to sign by Russia which they were told meant they would be allowed to stay, but actually meant they were being shipped off to Ukraine to fight.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago
[–] Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org 5 points 11 months ago

It's like a potentially abusive spouse, asking their future spouse to waive all rights to seek legal recourse if they beat them in the future. This crap shouldn't be legal.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 88 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes that will hold up in court, surely.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 30 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Everyone knows EULAs are legally binding.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 67 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wait… the Chinese Intelligence-collecting app might not be trustworthy?

[–] occhionaut@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

Oh, how my world crumbles around me!

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 53 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This should be a glaring warning for anyone. The translation for this statement is only ever "WE ARE DOING OR PLAN TO DO SHADY, LIKELY ILLEGAL THINGS WITH YOUR INFORMATION! ~#plsdontsuekthx~“

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago (5 children)

So these things keep appearing in contracts but everyone seems to say they're totally unenforceable so... Why do they keep appearing in contracts?

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 61 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If it's not illegal to add, the only risk is bad press coverage, and it might prevent someone from suing in the first place because they don't know their rights.

[–] Djtecha@lemm.ee 16 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Except in several states if any of the contract is invalid it all is.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (8 children)

In the United States where TikTok is based, contracts can include "severability clauses" that state that in the event any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the other parts are still good

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] lhx@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

That’s not a common thing in American contracts. Severability clauses take care of that.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is that true? I can't find any source for it, except very specific cases where the language and contents of the contract matter.

[–] jeansburger@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (7 children)

IANAL; However Usually the contracts have a severability clause, meaning even if some parts of that contract are null and void the rest of it stands minus the parts that are illegal. Does that mean those clauses are also null and void depending on locality? Again IANAL, but I believe it's pretty settled contract law at least in the US.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

We need legislation to fix this. Something like "should a contract drafted by a lawyer include clauses that they knew or should have known to be unenforceable or void, the entire contract shall be unenforceable by the drafting party"

[–] toned_chupacabra@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago

Because sooner or later, some judge will decide it is enforceable.

Plus it serves as a deterrent for some from even filing a suit with the risk of it getting thrown out and them out thousands of dollars in legal fees.

[–] Colorcodedresistor@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

to cover their asses. It's like seizure warnings on video games. it should go without saying but. sadly...it has to be said. if a case does arise, judges usually create a 'quasi' contract that's usually modified to be fairer for both parties...usually...😬

[–] UnityDevice@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

I'm guessing this might be a pre-emptive response to all the Snapchat lawsuits. Basically, parents are suing Snapchat because their kids talked to drug dealers using it.

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Because enough people will read it without consulting a lawyer and never do so that pays for itself before the inks dry.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 39 points 11 months ago

Oh good. Tiktok destroyed its own contract validity with that one. This means it’s vulnerable.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

How the fuck is this even legal? How can a company put itself above or beyond all legal scrutiny.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

It's probably not legal, but do you have the financial means to take on a large company like Tiktok in a protracted legal battle?

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 32 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Are those user agreements even legally binding in most countries? They aren't in my country since you aren't signing them, pressing agree doesn't count.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As far as I know it's not legally binding pretty much anywhere. They're not legal contracts because they don't fulfill the requirements of one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

A contract can even be entered by nodding - if your baker and you know that you come for one loaf of bread every day and both you and they nod when you enter the store, that can be a legal agreement. Pressing agree to agree to the additional clauses of the base contract offered by the company can be as binding as pressing the button to buy stuff from amazon, which is to say potentially very much binding, unless any laws are broken.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

However, if Amazon included in their standard legalese a paragraph saying that they own my firstborn child that'd be considered null and void over here even if I click "agree", pay the purchase price for my order and everything, for the simple reason that it's not a thing you generally find in contracts about the sale of a bottle of fish sauce and a pair of hiking socks, and courts long since realised that noone actually reads fineprint. What they can and do put in the fineprint are things such as payment and shipment procedure details, that (in the case of buying on credit) the delivered items remain their property until paid, such stuff. Also on top of that the newborn child thing is against good mores which is another reason why it's null and void.

And Germany is a funny case when it comes to contracts, anyway. Say there's a shop advertising bubble gum for a euro a pack. That's a binding contract: Unless there's an obvious mistake (period in the wrong place or something like that), if I am an upstanding member of the general public and want to buy their bubble gum and they don't want to sell it I could go to court and force them to. Then, upon entering I take a pack of gum off the shelf and put it on the counter. That now spawns a sales contract, which spawns two other contracts: One obligating me, the buyer, to transfer property of money to the seller, and another obligating the seller to transfer property of the bubble gum to me. However, as I put an Euro right next to the bubble gum and unlike e.g. houses bubble gum packets don't come with registered ownership titles the two sub-contracts are fulfilled on the spot, which fulfils the sales contract, and nobody cares, except jurists and people making fun of jurists.

Non-verbal contracts very much are enforcable over here, the key factor is konkludentes Verhalten: Conduct implying intent. Long story short if you show up for work and the boss gives you tasks to do and you fulfil them you have an employment contract even though nobody signed anything.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Depends on your local laws. Verbal contracts exist here but they are unenforcable without a 3th party witness and even then very limited and only used for the simplest and most immediate exchanges. Buying and selling is kind of a contract but only handled in courts if it's between individuals, if a company is involved then it's the consumer protection laws and agency that handles that. Most obligations and privileges from buying and selling are handled by local law instead of a contract. But contracts on the Internet are only legally binding if you digitally sign it here, an agree button or even a normal signature isn't binding here for that. Our government IDs allow for online signatures with cryptographic keys unique to each person, that's the only legally binding online signature here.

A TOS can only be used to enforce your behaviour on that platform, anything beyond that is not enforceable here.

[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

i'll need that NDA signed before i can comment on your video

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

There's no way that's enforceable

[–] ultra@feddit.ro 6 points 11 months ago

!ABoringDystopia@lemmy.world

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I'm sure they have absolutely nothing to be afraid of. They're just defending themselves. /s

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


According to The New York Times, changes that TikTok "quietly" made to its terms suggest that the popular app has spent the back half of 2023 preparing for a wave of legal battles.

Perhaps most significantly, TikTok also added a section to its terms that mandates that all legal complaints be filed within one year of any alleged harm caused by using the app.

Then, in 2022, TikTok defeated a Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that the app was liable for a child's death because its algorithm promoted a deadly "Blackout Challenge."

The same year, a bipartisan coalition of 44 state attorneys general announced an investigation to determine whether TikTok violated consumer laws by allegedly putting young users at risk.

As new information becomes available to consumers through investigations and lawsuits, there are concerns that users may become aware of harms that occurred before TikTok's one-year window to file complaints and have no path to seek remedies.

One lawyer representing more than 1,000 guardians and minors claiming TikTok-related harms, Kyle Roche, told the Times that he is challenging TikTok's updated terms.


The original article contains 748 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›