IANAL, but I think they should be in a far weaker position with their whole “if you don’t object within 30 days we will consider you to have accepted”. They can’t really argue that no positive action from the other party is construed as acceptance of a new contract. If there was continued use of the service that would be different, but no action cannot reasonably be construed as acceptance.
I think you’re going to be very surprised by how quickly they win any trial when they first impress upon the court, “I know you are, but what am I?” Of course, the judge will primarily be swayed by the moment when they call a customer to the witness stand and then mutter, “guiltypersonsayswhat”
You’d be forgiven for thinking that no judge would rule in favor of a company who, post-damages, tries to build a loophole that ties the hands of users who likely will no longer trust the platform enough to log on. But this is the legal version of a bully giving a triple-w (wet willy and a wedgie) to someone who’s ignoring them and judges think that kind of behavior is super cool. That’s why if you ever ask a judge “what’s that on your robe?” as then flick their nose when they look down, they’ll simply laugh and you’ll be friends forever.
IANAL, but everything I said feels really accurate. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
That’s exactly how it works, as long as they notify everybody and set a drop dead date on it, usage beyond that point constitutes acceptance. No different than every other passive TOS on the planet.
That’s exactly what they’re trying to do, the point I’m making is it won’t hold up to any scrutiny. You need at least some sort of positive action from the other party to construe agreeing to new terms. Contracts are always two way agreements, in spite of how many consumer facing businesses would like you to believe they dictate the terms.
IANAL, but I think they should be in a far weaker position with their whole “if you don’t object within 30 days we will consider you to have accepted”. They can’t really argue that no positive action from the other party is construed as acceptance of a new contract. If there was continued use of the service that would be different, but no action cannot reasonably be construed as acceptance.
I think you’re going to be very surprised by how quickly they win any trial when they first impress upon the court, “I know you are, but what am I?” Of course, the judge will primarily be swayed by the moment when they call a customer to the witness stand and then mutter, “guiltypersonsayswhat”
You’d be forgiven for thinking that no judge would rule in favor of a company who, post-damages, tries to build a loophole that ties the hands of users who likely will no longer trust the platform enough to log on. But this is the legal version of a bully giving a triple-w (wet willy and a wedgie) to someone who’s ignoring them and judges think that kind of behavior is super cool. That’s why if you ever ask a judge “what’s that on your robe?” as then flick their nose when they look down, they’ll simply laugh and you’ll be friends forever.
IANAL, but everything I said feels really accurate. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
I like anal too
That’s exactly how it works, as long as they notify everybody and set a drop dead date on it, usage beyond that point constitutes acceptance. No different than every other passive TOS on the planet.
Which is to say, entirely unenforceable. TOS don’t hold up in court, but it requires time and money to get to court.
That’s exactly what they’re trying to do, the point I’m making is it won’t hold up to any scrutiny. You need at least some sort of positive action from the other party to construe agreeing to new terms. Contracts are always two way agreements, in spite of how many consumer facing businesses would like you to believe they dictate the terms.