SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 2) by frojack on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:37PM
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.