Comment by jkaplowitz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkaplowitz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It is new again, actually - if you opted out previously, you have to opt out again to stay opted out, according to the wording of the new terms. One opt out per Discord account, if you have multiple, in each case within 30 days of registering that account or of April 15, 2024, whichever is later. This provision does not make reference to the first time you accepted a version of these terms with an arbitration clause, or a similar phrase that would obviate the need for a new opt-out.

On the plus side, if you didn’t opt out before, you get a new opportunity to opt out, which according to the new terms will remove all disputes that have not yet been filed from the scope of previous arbitration agreements with Discord.

Since the clause only applies if you are a US resident, it’s very unclear how that opt-out deadline applies to existing Discord accounts for people who relocate into the US after the deadline. The conservative approach is to opt out wherever in the world you live, in case you later move to the US.

Thanks for the info. Just in case, I setup a script to send a daily mail to arbitration-opt-out@discord.com

Risky … if it’s automated, they could argue that you’re not actually making a conscious decision and/or not actually doing it yourself, claiming that it doesn’t apply or isn’t an unambiguous indication of your intent to knowingly opt out of whatever the next revision of the arbitration clause may be. It’s far more unclear how that would play out in (US) court than with a manual opt-out once per account per terms of service revision.

Your are right. I actually should add a new script for a daily mail every time there is any update to the tos page.

One way you could track updates to their ToS is via https://monitoro.co

Disclosure: I work on it.

A funny argument to make when the “contract” is entirely automated, without negotiation or consideration.

Such agreements should not be enforceable in the first place.

I agree that there should be more restrictions on this than there currently are in the US, but unless the composition of the US Supreme Court changes enough that they overrule their many recent arbitration-related precedents, we’re stuck with this unless and until Congress changes the law. Honestly, they’re not even legally required to allow an opt-out at all under current rulings, other than rejecting the terms of service entirely.

At least no constitutional amendment is required to fix this. These US Supreme Court rulings have been based on the Federal Arbitration Act, a regular statue, not on the Constitution (except as the source of Congress’s authority to override state law on this issue).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com