***Judge Robreno faulted the Second Life TOS on numerous grounds:
- lack of mutuality. The TOS gave Linden Research the right to terminate users "for any reason or no reason," the right to invoke several one-sided remedies to protect its own rights, and the right to modify the TOS at any time, including the arbitration provision.
- excessive arbitration costs. Up-front costs for arbitration were significantly greater than the costs of filing a federal court action.
- venue in California. The TOS unreasonably demanded that Second Life users travel to California to arbitrate claims commonly involving minimal sums.
- confidentiality agreement. The gag order on arbitration proceedings called for by the TOS allows Linden Research to accumulate knowledge about arbitrations involving the TOS, while individual plaintiffs must begin from scratch in every case.
- business realities. Judge Robreno said that Linden Research made no showing that such a one-sided agreement was necessary to conduct its business
Unconscionability means unreasonably unfair to one party, marked by oppression, or otherwise unacceptably offensive to public policy <an unconscionable clause> <finds the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made Uniform Commercial Code>
one-sided remedies to resolve disputes The best way to explain this is the TOS or EULA favors the company in all aspects when it comes to resolving issues it is "What the company wants" and you as the user have to agree to it regardless of whom is right, or how ever far fetched the remedy is. They may dissolve your files, or take privy away from you, it doesn't matter if you did anything wrong or not. They have the right to do it regardless. Most companies claim they have this right because they are supplying the service to the public etc. But in court this would not hold up. A one sided ruling that favors the "company only policy, their rules, take it or leave it" does not resolve issues, it only creates new ones, and the new ones are mostly legal issues.