Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday August 20 2017, @04:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the customer-loses,-again dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:39PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:39PM (#556667)

    That's clever, but not correct.

    Signing a signature is not agreeing, it's signing a signature from how you describe it. It only refers to that someone with name like yours managed to scraw ink in a fairly unique fashion in a manner that might even appear to be the likeness of your own ink or graphite spilling.

    That is not how it works.

    This clicking crap is the next level of consenual agreement with the contextual understanding that if you want to get what they have, you need to abide by their rules. I

    The difference now, though, is that they do not give you reams of paperwork, and they also often poorly manage to find a way to actually identified who clicked agree or next to continue. My pet monkey might do it for me -- but he couldn't sign my name.

    They don't care, though, because they can't hold the monkey responsible for your actions. THey can do it to you, though, and if we all don't like this... maybe we should just stop using a lot of these free conveniences that hide behind this horrible legal implication.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:16PM (1 child)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:16PM (#556682) Journal

    This clicking crap is the next level of consenual agreement

    But I tried to show that it is not consent if you do not have a viable choice. You choose to breathe. I said that means you agree. Did you agree?

    Let's take this back to a real-world example. Many organizations will only pay you by direct deposit. Some of them you have a real choice -- you can quit your job and maybe choose another employer who does not require direct deposit. But some things you simply cannot choose to avoid entirely.

    So now you have to go to a bank to have the account to receive the direct deposit. But no bank will actually negotiate terms with you that you find agreeable. You have no choice but to jump through someone's hoops. In that case I am saying that the act of jumping through this mandatory hoop is divorced from actual consent and agreement.

    The lawyers can spew as many pounds of paper as they want. It still does not mean I agreed.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:37PM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:37PM (#556744) Journal

      But I tried to show that it is not consent if you do not have a viable choice. You choose to breathe. I said that means you agree.

      You tried, but you failed miserably, because you made a false comparison on so many levels its hard to list them all.

      Agreeing to terms to use some software is not the same as agreeing to terms to get your next breath of air.

      They don't own the air. (even the air inside their building). They do own the software.
      They have no right to deny you use of any available air. They do have the right to deny you the use of their software.
      You can claim duress if denied air. (Thereby invalidating the contract). You can not claim duress if denied use of software.
      You have no choice but to breath. You do have a choice to not use software.
      Denying you air would be a crime. Denying you software is not a crime - may even be a kindness in some cases.

      I could go on, but you get the point. Try again, and be a little more realistic.

       

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.