Guy Claims Google Owes Him $500 Billion
from the novel-legal-arguments dept
I'm always interested in novel legal theories and arguments, and Eric Goldman points us to the latest attempt by one David Stebbins to convince the court system that giant companies owe him tons of money. Last time we'd checked in on Stebbins, he had been claiming Walmart owed him $600 billion, using some dubious claims which still don't make much sense. But it involved something with a "contract" he put on his website, which he apparently emailed folks at Walmart about, and when they sent back a boilerplate reply saying he had contacted the wrong department, he demanded they settle their "legal dispute." Walmart ignored that, and he declared that they now owed him $600 billion (with a b) as an arbitration award.He's now trying something similar with Google, though this time it's "only" for $500 billion (again, with a b). The filing is embedded below and it's worth a read. It kicks off with a long diatribe insisting that the court cannot deny the motion, and making dubious legal claims that the court "must" grant the motion that Google owes him $500 billion. As for the crux of his "argument," it's that YouTube's terms of service say that the company can change the terms at any time and give notice. So he decided to change the terms himself. As he notes:
[YouTube's terms of service] state that the terms can be unilaterally modified at any time. If the other party does not wish to accept the new terms, they may sever the contractual relationship.The key part that he "inserted" into his new terms was this nugget:
On March 22, 2011, I took YouTube up on that generous offer and sent them an email announcing my own modifications of the Youtube terms of service.
If you do not accept my invitation to arbitrate within 24 hours of receiving it, I automatically win the relief request, regardless of the merits. No actual arbitration award need be entered; I simply win, automatically, without having to go to arbitration. However, this will only apply to me. If you attempt to arbitrate with me, and I do not accept it, you must obtain an order to compel arbitration.Amusingly, in the clause above that, he also states: "If you even so much as attempt to litigate a case with me, even if that attempt is unsuccessful you automatically loose that case." Yes, he typed "loose."
You can pretty much guess what happened next. He claimed that YouTube "accepted" his modified contract by not canceling his accounts within 30 days, and then it failed to respond to his arbitration request within 24 hours. Thus, he tells the court, Google owes him $500 billion and, according to the legal genius of David Stebbins, the court has no choice but to agree.
Of course, courts generally don't like having people waste their time, and I imagine this one gets dropped pretty quickly for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that YouTube's terms of service are actually pretty clear that only YouTube can modify them, not some random, lawsuit happy guy.
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
Filed Under: arbitration, david stebbins, terms of service
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unilateral vs. Multilateral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unilateral vs. Multilateral
Did they change it recently, because that seems vary clear to me that only YouTube can change the TOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: abc gum on Aug 18th, 2011 @ 4:49am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Done before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't view this as a lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as much as he is crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: as much as he is crazy
That would be a very big "if".
If that were the case he should be suing every website that has a "Terms of Use" or "Terms of Service clause", not just the companies who (apparently) have lots of money.
Beyond that, wasting the time of the US court system isn't going to win him any blue ribbons, and if he keeps going, might get him a spot in a very nice padded room somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: as much as he is crazy
"pretty clear"
"appear to me"
"last I remember"
"some judge claimed"
"maybe he said"
You put up an excellent argument as to why Mr. Stebbins "has a point".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: as much as he is crazy
The more you know....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: as much as he is crazy
Contract law, of course, is a matter of state law.
Here's some Texas law, from Harris v Blockbuster:
Contract law is other states may differ. However the principle that “illusory contracts” are unenforcable is pretty basic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point is, he's an idiot. Nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For my own sanity I have to assume that he's trying to make some kind of point rather than honestly trying to get $500 billion from google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: as much as he is crazy
As for Gracey's point about not suing sites that don't have money, would you really rather he sue podunk bloggers? Actually, it's mostly only sites that do have money which have these nutty one-sided ToS's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: as much as he is crazy
My own have terms - the terms I choose to offer, not what someone else wants.
As for "monied sites" - while you may think the terms are one-sided, nobody is twisting your arm to agree with them. If you don't like them, find another site who doesn't have terms.
Since when is anyone required to set up their terms to suit another user?
I get pretty tired of stuff like that. When you own a business, you get to set the rules (within the law) and if others don't like it...well tough. Go somewhere else.
Nagging on terms of agreement or use is not much different than assuming you can tell someone how to run their business .
There are better ways of suggesting changes than making yourself look like...well this particular idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is this guy related to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is this guy related to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're trying to figure out why Marie Antoinette is owed trillions by the oil companies, give up. There is no reason. Anyway...
When the judge I work for started speaking in French at a hearing she told him she didn't understand his dialect.
Needless to say, her case was dismissed without even an opposing counsel filing an appearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy has a great point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I Patent that
I tend to think I could not patent being total dumb ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ToS/EULA
All end user contracts should be void unless signed in some way, similar to how my student loans require proof of who you are to "digitally" sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there is a monopoly, which by definition of a monopoly means that they are the only game in town, and that monopoly declares that it has a right to change the terms of service at whim then it should only be judicial fair that the opposing party have equivalent rights.
Regardless of any other interest David Stebbins is doing the world a favor by showing how absurd those heads I whin, tails you loose one sided mandatory contracts are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are many other video sites. Try looking.
They might be the most popular "game in town", but they aren't the only one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry guys, them's the ropes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too bad, so sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the Terms in the world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All the Terms in the world...
To me, this whole country's has gotten way too laissez-faire with capitalism. For God sakes, we are treating corporations as if they are people now. If that isn't the most whack concept, I don't know what is. They aren't people - they have no souls. Sure, people work there, but that doesn't make them some 'super person'.
I don't know.. it is just all so sickening. Working hard to built wealth. That's considering being dumb. Schemeing, manipulating, stealing, lying, cheating ... that's all par for the course if you want to 'make it' in America.
Is it just me? Does nobody else feel things are way upside down? It is no wonder our economy is in shambles. You have to build from the GROUND -> UP. Trickle down crap doesn't work, we all know that. When the poor (or middle class as they are told they are) have finally been fleeced to the point where they have no more money to spend, then of course everything goes to crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All the Terms in the world...
cor·po·ra·tionNoun/ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən/
1. A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
So i am not sure what your problem that it is being treated like one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mediation, meditation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"YouTube's terms of service" are also unconscionable and not binding.
I've expanded on this before and will have to make it boilerplate, because the supposed "Terms of Service" are in fact terms of those who intend to be MASTERS of society, not its servants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "YouTube's terms of service" are also unconscionable and not binding.
BART is a publicly-funded venture, hence the 1st amendment applies to it. Someone offering a website that is free of charge and accessible to the general public is not operating public property, no more than is someone operating a restaurant, hot dog cart, bowling alley, or telephone hotline operating public property.
Property doesn't magically transmogrify from private to public just because you want it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should get penalized for this nonsense, and it should be more than just a slap on the wrist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vexatious Litigant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sounds like one of his letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flashbacks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this guy
Terms of Service are ridiculous though, I'll give him that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying the same with XBOX Live
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/08/19/xbox-live-user-says-microsoft-owes-him-500-billion/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]