Several sites are reporting on the decision in the case of Uber versus Spencer Meyer that the terms of service attached to a mobile application are legally binding, even when the terms are only available via a hyperlink, and you don't actually see them or need to read them to register the application.
In this case Uber argued that Spencer Meyer, who filed an antitrust lawsuit against Uber, had agreed to a mandatory arbitration process as part of the terms of service when registering with the Uber application, and could not enter litigation as a result.
From The Register:
On Thursday, the US Second Court of Appeals decided [PDF] that when customers installed Uber's ride-hailing app and agreed to the terms and conditions – even though virtually none of them actually read the details – they were obliged to go through arbitration if they had a dispute with the company.
The Independent has a similar summary on the judgement:
The argument underpinning the decision revolved around a scenario familiar to anyone with a smartphone: what happens when a customer assents to the often-dense terms of service attached to using a new app.
In directing the case to arbitration, the United States District Court of Appeals for the Second District, vindicated Uber and other tech firms who argued customers should be expected to be bound by what they agreed to - even if that would mean wading into a thicket of text.
"While it may be the case that many users will not bother reading the additional terms, that is the choice the user makes," the Second Circuit's decision says.
Further coverage at Business Insider and Courtroom News.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tyrsal on Sunday August 20 2017, @05:08AM (3 children)
I don't know why, this shouldn't surprise me... But it still makes me sad to hear this.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:41AM (2 children)
Since it's legal, we should be able to apply it by just coming up with some attractive app, focused on the legal profession, which assigns their entire estate to us (for nebulous values of "us").
There seems nothing in the ruling which mandates the same terms for all users, so we can make them specific simply by stating that we intend to do so.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:46AM
That would be an excellent gag. Target specifically the lawyers involved in this case, get them to install an app with an...interesting...EULA, and take them to court, citing this case as precedent. For bonus points, target the judge as well.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Sunday August 20 2017, @08:32AM
Don't forget to include the clause that not only may they never sue you for any reason (remember not to include anything that limits it to issues related to the app), but they also may not act as attorney for anyone who opposes you in court, nor support such a person or organization in any other way. Make that clause as generic as possible ("to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law"). Oh, and make sure that there's a mandatory registration which tells you the identity of anyone installing and using that app.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.