Clause in free WiFi contract obliges thousands to clean music festival toilets

v3.co.uk

15 points·cm2187··2 comments

I think their takeaway is wrong. The takeaway is that we should do away with ToS and ToU contracts. This is already partially the case since no court would ever enforce this part of the contract so you can more or less safely ignore it.

> This is already partially the case since no court would ever enforce this part of the contract so you can more or less safely ignore it.

At least in US law, that doesn't necessarily invalidate anything else in a contract. Also, the enforceability of any clause in a contract is subject to local laws, jurisprudence, and whether the plaintiff can make a reasonable argument for why precedence might no longer apply.

Additionally, everything is in question when there is a binding arbitration clause. The ToS company usually pays the arbitrator (far more than any one defendant) and the arbitrator may not be bound by local laws to decide if a clause is enforceable or not. Also, you may have no legal civil recourse if an arbitrator judges that a clause is enforceable and you suspect it isn't.

I don't know if I agree that "we should do away with ToS and ToU contracts", but I think they should be trimmed back from what they are now. And I certainly don't think it's "more or less safe to ignore" a clause unless you discuss with your attorney.

IANAL

Reply on news.ycombinator.com