Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessaustin | Hacker News Reader

IANAL, but the app prominently displaying "you're this much closer to the bonus" every time the driver uses it would seem to overrule some never-communicated retroactive contract term? If the app can't be relied on for commerce, why should any customer trust it?

View on HN

A common shady practice these days:

  By signing up ... you agree to the terms and conditions.
  ...
  The terms and conditions are subject to change without notice.

Consider WhatsApp, for example. It probably said that personal information would not be shared with anyone. And then later changed the terms, it would be shared (with Facebook or whatever).

It doesn't matter when the company contradicts their fine print.

Seriously, did you look at the screenshots?

I struggle to see how this holds legality. It basically says here is what you are agreeing to but also we can change that and you still agree.

Who knows? It may be my ignorance, but I struggle to remember an incident when customers challenged T&Cs on some service like this in the courts. There is law in the UK against unfair terms in contracts. But like the genome there are large parts that of the statute book which lie dormant.

I hope someone with more knowledge can come in and clarify, but I have always interpreted this as, "You agreed to X, if in the future we change our agreement to Y and you continue using our service, we will have assumed you agreed to Y".

I think that's pretty fair, it would be nice if services let you know when they updated their T&C, and sometimes they do (I recall Google doing this) but honestly, if you didn't read it the first time, will you read the updated version?

It would be nice if they could also provide a document with the differences, but I guess that would be a lot of work with no real benefit and still, no one would read it.

  It would be nice if they could also provide a document with the
  differences, but I guess that would be a lot of work

I doubt that. Legalese such as TOS are, I'm sure, prepared carefully and a diff should be readily available.

  and still, no one would read it.

A few might want to read it and may actually do so (if they were to receive one).

As an example, Apple prompts one to send the terms upon upgrading the OS. This is a good step. Although it'd be better if they could highlight the changed text in the terms.

I think there is a requirement that the user be provided an opportunity to view and agree to the change....(unfortunately in general if someone has vested some time into something, they tend to continue to use it even at the cost of erosion of their rights).

The difference is if you outright screw someone, they can leave. The ability to acquire new drivers is the limiting factor on the growth of Uber and Lyft. If they screw someone who has already gone through the process, it will likely cost them more than $350 to get a replacement.

Despite many folks talking conspiracy theories, I think this is just a process breakdown. I would be very surprised if the driver isn't made whole after the PR goes big.

Agreed. A strong case to sue, especially with other co-plaintiffs.

Also a strong case for large punitive damages.

Lyft puts out a carrot and then fucks you for profit?

No jury will put up with that (neither will Lyft's settlement team).

Can we all agree to stop using the acronym IANAL?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com