Court Pushes Back A Bit On Unilateral EULA Changes
from the well,-that's-good dept
When we launched the public beta of the Techdirt Insight Community, one of the things we tried to be very careful about was the terms of service. We wanted to avoid a lot of the annoying things you find in many of the terms of service. It took two separate law firms and (not joking) one special two hour meeting explaining that the terms of service needed to actually be for the benefit of the user, rather than positioning us against the user, but eventually things worked out. One of the things the lawyers came back with initially was a clause saying that we could change the terms at any time and it was the users' responsibility to check. That seemed pretty lame. In fact, our product development team had already set up our system so that any changes to the terms alerts the user and will not allow them to login to the service without agreeing to the new terms. I'll admit that our terms still suggest that the user check the terms for changes, but it also lets them know that they'll be alerted to changes as well. It's good that we did this, because as Greg Beck alerts us, a court has ruled that websites can't unilaterally change contracts on customers and claim it's the users' responsibility to check for changes. Eric Goldman gives his take on the case as well. This is something that should be obvious, but apparently wasn't. In an age of EULAs that no one ever reads, it's good to see the courts recognizing that it may be a bit ridiculous to consider them binding -- at least in some specific cases.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blizzard EULA
http://www.GamerTex.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standardized EULAs
Above the mandatory "I have read these terms" check box, the icons representing the EULA above would be displayed. Having read them once, the user knows at a glance what he's agreeing to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need an unfair contracts law
"The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) provide that a term which has not been individually negotiated in a consumer contract is unfair (and hence non-binding on the consumer) if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer."
It's what allows a Brit to ignore crappy EULA terms that try to remove their rights under the sale of goods act, without being considered to have accepted the EULA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You need an unfair contracts law
Well done, sir, well done indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EULA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EULAs Not (in my opinion) Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]