Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Hamlet might have had a point. This feels very like a-moral application of years of legal training.

On this basis, any transactions, of any nature which come with an Implied contract acceptance are going to be superseded by words which enable get-out-of-jail-free for all parent, associated, restructured companies, forever.

Watch out when you sign the hotel bill. You just promised to give your body on death to the parent company's medical school.

I doubt it's that simple but you would hope the justice system is going to tear this legal theory a new exit hole and not wash their hands first. Specificity is everything in a contract. Sweeping terms, perpetual licence would be a nightmare.

(Not a lawyer, which will be obvious)

View on HN

I’m pretty sure in the EU this would be dismissed because nobody can be expected to really read the ToS when subscribing to a streaming service.

Paul Vixie notoriously included some text in an IETF draft which was of the "your first born is given to satan" type and called out all the "I have read the draft" people in a working group. Fair call. I hadn't read the draft so my first born was safe.

In EU you have regulation 93/13/EEG. Power to the consumer.

It is codified into the law of every member state, but might differ on some implementation details. For instance, in the Netherlands forced arbitration can only exists if it fair and not burdensome, and disputes can still be taken to state court. Also these clauses cannot be applied for totally different disputes (like restaurant vs streaming service like in this case).

Contract law as a whole has a major flaw where the vast majority of consumers are entering into contracts they cannot provide informed consent to. To call these consensual contracts is to reduce consent to a saying yes even if one does not understand what they agree to, which is a standard for consent that is invalid in any other application.

Yeh, in the EU there's various instruments/treaties that limit arbitration agreements.

I know binding arbitration is the new hotness, but it seems unlikely this is the first time a company has tried to link a generic “absolved-from-everything” clause to an unrelated incident.

Binding arbitration WAS the new hotness. Some companies have learned that at scale it's a nightmare. Works for one case, falls over for 10,000 who refuse to bind to a single case and pursue the action, at your company cost.

There is a growing trend of companies inserting "mass arbitration" or "coordinated filing" clauses into their contracts. It isn't clear if these will be enforceable.

The arbitration providers (AAA, JAMS, etc.) have also started implementing their own "mass arbitration" provisions. In some cases even providing subscription bulk pricing.

Other problems: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#mass-arbit...

(I should add the above + references at some point to the website)

Wow, that's an awesome site.

IANAL but seems like a text book example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability

Not everything you sign will hold in a court.

That is why we have courts and judges for.

Wow, the example on that page is brilliant. To quote:

    > For instance, in Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020) the Supreme Court of Canada found an arbitration clause requiring gig workers in Ontario to litigate before the Dutch International Chamber of Commerce was unconscionable and so void.

LOL. Uber, again.

“Inventing”!

Up next proof based automated arbitration. If input legal argument identifies case, automated verdict. Heard: only new arguments for viability on changing,creating a new proof.

> Hamlet might have had a point.

Perhaps you're thinking of Dick the Butcher in Henry VI? [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_kill_all_the_lawyers

Some say the bee stings; but I say, 'tis the bee's wax, for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never my own man since.

Yes. Thank you for correcting my faulty attribution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com