***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
 
   
  The court denied Linden Research's motion to compel arbitration,  holding that the Second Life terms of service agreement -- which called for  arbitration -- was procedurally and substantively  unconscionable.
  
 The court concluded, the Second Life TOS seeks to  impose a one-sided dispute resolution scheme that tilts unfairly, "in almost all  situations," in Second Life's favor.
  
  
   
 The facts that I want to note is that 99.9% of all of these 
EULAs and 
TOS agreements favor the business establishment,  leaving the user with NO rights, and NO way to dispute the EULAs or TOS other  than not using the website, or software.  It is also important to point out  that most of the TOS agreements fall in the category of just plain unlawful  practices when it comes to the use of all of their services.  None of their  TOS in my opinion would hold up in court.  Just like the EULA the company  could change the TOS at any time, and the user is automatically meant to accept  ALL contents regardless if they had seen the new TOS agreement or not.   Even if the person agreed to a TOS or EULA the day before, and a new one was  released the next day you were still bound by the new agreement.  
 
 The TOS is on most websites, If you have a company name, then you have  a TOS. you may even have both a TOS and a EULA, some have several different  versions depending on software, or use of a certain online product like games,  webtools, file tools, etc, and as you know most read like a book, and most  contain about the same content, while others contain even more outlandish  content.  But the facts are that even the Courts are noticing how badly  written these EULAs and TOS's are.  They are also taking notice at how  many rights are being taken away from the users.  So many of the agreements  are being revoked by the Courts before they even get started on the Court  cases.  If you have a TOS agreement then you need to read it as if you  were on the side of the user.  Plus you need to take into  consideration the above points that were made by the Courts in California.   Some will argue that this case was held in California, and their laws are much  different from other States.  Well this is just the case to a certain  extent.  Judges all over can smell a bad EULA or TOS.  They could have  a case in your State, and come to the same agreements as the Judge did in  California.  Show the down right stupidity, and the lack of user  rights in a TOS, or a EULA, and watch that judge explain why he/she faulted  them.  make a EULA or TOS agreement that contains unlawful practices and  watch the courts make a spectacle out of you, or a example out of you for other  companies to learn from.  
  
 This however is not all the software, and website companies fault  though.  Yes I know you will say "yes it is." But it's not.  It is the  users fault too because most never read the EULAs or the TOS agreements.  I  am willing to bet that most of you don't even know what you agreed to in  them.   When you give the "I agree" ok it is just like saying their  practices are ok by you.  You are telling them they can get you to agree to  anything just so long as you get to use their website or software.  You  don't care about the agreement.  Do you care?  Are you even worried  that one day a far fetched agreement might fall though the cracks, and the  Courts may give the agreement the "OK".  Does this bother you? 
  
  
 Oh and here is you something to think about,  in a small town a man  went to the neighborhood software store, and bought a software, and took it  home.  Between the time of taking the wrapper off, and installing the  software, their was a  EULA and or a TOS on a website he had to  agree too.  Part of it read that the software company owned all works  created by their software.  The other part was if he did not agree, then  don't install the software.  So he didn't.  He took wrapper and all  back to the software store.  They refused to give him a refund.  They  said the software was opened and they could not accept the software back for  that reason.  They had a no refund policy, and the guy was out of some  major bucks.  I think it was in the 300 dollar range.  He took them to  court, and in his dispute he said the agreement and the whole nine yards of the  TOS and use of their website was not on the outside of the wrapper.  If it  had of been he never would of bought the software.  Apparently part of the  software also was linked to a website that was owned by the software  maker.  He was hit by three TOS agreements before he even began to install  the software.  The Judge ruled in favor of the purchaser because he said  that it is not the purchasers fault that the software has the rules about the  ownership of the works created by him were owned by the software  company.   He had every right not to accept the TOS, or the EULA if he  did not like them.  Then the judge says it is not right for the software  store to put a burden of lost of payment on the purchaser when it is the fault  of the software company's TOS and or EULA.  So the guy won his case because  the Judge said that refund policy puts a bad burden on the buyer.
  
 I can see this as a problem too if your trying to buy software and it cost  major money, and the EULA or TOS agreement is lame, so you return it, and  purchase another software.  If you eat the cost of the first one, and say  you paid like 329 bucks for the first software, and another 289 bucks for the  second.  That is 618 bucks for just one software if you ate the cost of the  first one.  
  
  
 Take-it-or-leave-it user policy is a policy that a person  has to accept as is, and they can't dispute, or make changes to the policy  regardless if they are capable of doing so.  Hopefully most of you are  aware that when signing a contract you are, or you can make changes to the  contract and sign or initial those changes you made.  It is then up to the  person, or business to read over your changes, and accept or deny your changes  by also not including their initials, or including them in the areas they accept  the changes.  Then you have the burden of going back over the contract  seeing what was accepted, and possibly making changes so that the contract is  acceptable for both sides.  This is a law in every State that I know  of.  You have the right to change any contract.  They don't  necessarily have to accept it as you have written, but they can not deny you the  right to change the contract.  
  
 A EULA or a TOS is a contract between a company, and a person(s) or between  two person(s),  As I had said in Part one of this subject... EULAs or TOS  agreements put duress on the person having to accept the terms.  Because it  gives them a Take-it-or-leave-it option only.  Some people agree only  because they have no choice but to agree they need the software, or they need to  use the website tools.  Some software and or website tools have either  certain tools, or certain perks that no other website tool, or software has  included.  
  
 Surprise Terms are terms buried in TOS or EULAs that are  hard to find.  They can be buried under headings not related to the  heading, or placed in a spot in the agreement unrenowned to the reader. They may  be in very small text, or be included in a paragraph that reads like a book. The  paragraph may not be related to the surprise term at all.  There is nothing  in the text that brings attention to the agreement regardless of how important  the text may be.  Anything related to the important text is not set in  bold, has no clear heading of the subject, is buried, or hard to find in the  agreement, and most likely would not bring concern to the person deciding to  agree or not to the TOS or EULA.  It is intentionally buried in the  full text of the agreement. 
  
  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.  
   
 If I ever had a EULA or and TOS disagreement dispute, yes I would take them  to court.  I would take their whole ridicules TOS and EULA with me  too.  I would note the size of the EULA or TOS, and pain staken note every  rule they had in the agreement.  I would show the courts how they stripped  my rights from me, and I would point out if I had any rights in my favor (most  don't). I would also if I could, tell the courts that part of the suit is  the company if found in my favor, would have to clean up their EULA and TOS for  my State I live in, or nationwide.  (May not happen, but it's a nice  thought.)  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
  
 
1 comment:
Hi,
I found your blog as I was looking for consumer advocacy sites. I found very interesting site that provides aggregation of different consumer advocacy sites. I thought you would be interested to read about it...
my3cents
MeasuredUp
ConsumerReports
Post a Comment