Seems absurd to me. Companies could claim they put whatever they want in that text and the burden of proof would lie with the end user.
Here is a funny example:
https://www.geek.com/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-so...
It is important to capture terms when you sign up for things commercially and fight/negotiate terms that allow changes without notification.
I’ve definately run into situations where vendors decide to change the rules after the fact, even with things like shrinkwrap desktop software.
If you cannot negotiate with the counter party or it’s a goliath like Microsoft/Google/etc who wont negotiate with you, make a practice of downloading terms every quarter as they change.
i'm really interested; what do you think the alternative is?
would you be happier if you had to mail in a signed copy of the contract?
If mandatory arbitration is allowed, the right to sue does not exist. You cannot have one but not the other.
you have no ability to negotiate because they have something you want, and you're unwilling to give them anything they might want. would a meaningful fraction of the population pay even $1/mo to receive better contractual terms on their dropbox account?
without looking at it, i expect that the terms for S3 look quite a bit better.
> You should not have to read the EULAs, because companies should not be allowed to require that you waive your fundamental rights like this as a precondition of using their service
whoa there. there's allll sorts of stuff that can go into a contract besides waivers of "fundamental rights", that you'd really not want to agree to willy nilly.
Yes, you've accurately described the power relationship in the contract "negotiation" and how it allows exploitation and abuse.
>whoa there. there's allll sorts of stuff that can go into a contract besides waivers of "fundamental rights", that you'd really not want to agree to willy nilly.
Agreed, I was being hyperbolic. You should of course read EULAs (though there's an argument to be made that they should be required to be streamlined, or expressed in plain-language and short)
But you don't have to check the EULA for a "slavery clause" that promises you and your children in eternal servitude to the company, similarly you shouldn't have to check to see if you are giving up other fundamental rights.
Whenever a contract party uses preformulated clauses (i.e. not negotiated for that specific contract) such as TOS, they are limited in what they are allowed to put in there and any unclear clause is interpreted to their disadvantage. It cannot be unreasonably detrimental or surprising to the other party. For contracts with consumers there is a list of what is definitely considered detrimental. It includes binding arbitration.
Yes, this limits the freedom to conclude contracts. The justification used is that usually the party using preformulated clauses has much larger negotiating power and such a relationship is usually not made of equals.
(Effectively the law, but as written for Simple English Wikipedia; and much more limited in length.)
As has been said, reading every legal document in the footer of every site/product is just not practical. The vast, vast majority of consumers are absolutely at the mercy of every company they deal with.