Guy Suing Google For $500 Billion, Now Suing Microsoft For The Same Amount
from the either/or dept
Last week, we wrote about David Stebbins legal filing in which he claimed that Google owed him $500 billion, and that the whole thing could not be contested. This wasn't a first. As we noted, earlier in the year he demanded $600 billion from Walmart. Eric Goldman lets us know that Stebbins is also demanding $500 billion from Microsoft, using basically the identical legal "theory" (and we use that term loosely) as he did with Google. That is, he "amended" the Xbox contract, sent it to Microsoft, telling the company that if it didn't cancel his account it meant it had agreed to the contract. When his account wasn't canceled he demanded arbitration over a random issue, pointing to the clauses in his amended contract, including a promise to respond to arbitration requests in 24 hours. Microsoft, of course, did not. Once again, he pointed to the clause in his contract that "claimed" such a forfeit means an automatic victory in arbitration at an amount declared by Stebbins. He then goes to court to "enforce" this supposedly incontestable arbitration "win."Like most of his previous lawsuits, this one will likely get tossed, in part because nothing in the terms for Xbox (or YouTube, with the Google lawsuit) say that the customer can unilaterally change the contract, contrary to Stebbins' claims. It'll also get tossed out because it's ridiculous.
When we wrote about the Google claim, a few folks in the comments pointed out, accurately, that Stebbins' efforts, while crazy, do point out the ridiculousness of one-sided clickthrough agreements, and the fact that most companies reserve the right to unilaterally change them, and that you "accept" those changes by doing nothing. In fact, in an interview with SeattlePI (the main link above), Stebbins seems to suggest that's part of his motivation:
�My true goal is not to just harass, and it�s not just to get rich. My true goal is to level the playing field.If that's his reasoning, it's likely to fail on that intention as well, as these lawsuits won't actually work and will get tossed (and sooner or later he may end up in a bit of trouble for filing bogus lawsuits). It's one thing to point out bogus legal terms. It's another to abuse the court system to try to make a point (and on the "lottery ticket" hail mary pass that some court might award you $500 billion).
�I�m trying to give employees, consumers, and generally, people who�ve been economically disadvantaged a new, powerful tool to protect themselves. Who needs to go crying to Congress for more workers� rights and consumer protection laws?! We can do it all ourselves! How�s that for a motive you can get behind?!�
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, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contract?
A EULA is a contract, you moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he wants $500 billion dollars why not set up a worthwhile tech company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ohhh... but to live in my own made-up fantasy land like the industry does....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
win-win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: win-win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only the courts actually worked that way.
To be honest he is doing a good thing by highlighting out how ridiculous all of these 'by opening this package/by not canceling this service' agreements are. Perhaps this will encourage more people to realize that these 'agreements' aren't actually legally binding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to agree with others above me on the alleged motivation for these suits: the [non]validity of agreeing to a contract or terms that are not presented to you prior to purchase.
I think it's a can of worms that most companies don't wanna open. They like it just the way it is - ambiguous and taken as gospel by the buying public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary_pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just change the text before clicking submit
javascript:document.body.contentEditable%20=%20'true';%20document.designMode='on';%20void%20 0
[There shouldn't be a space at the end, but I can't seem to get rid of it. The code should end "200"]
You can then change the text on the webpage. I think you'll then have to do the same but with 'false' and 'off' in order to turn off edit mode so that you can click on a submit button.
Just remember to take a screenshot or something of the terms you're agreeing to (or the blank page ;)) and say goodbye to all those annoying clauses!
Caveat: IANAL. I can't comment on how enforceable your amended terms are (or how enforceable the original terms were either come to that)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just change the text before clicking submit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foiled
There goes my get rich quick scheme...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not necessarily the case, but something to consider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still, only he knows for certain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about time...
Having said that, I've been waiting for years now for someone to pierce the ridiculuous legal fiction that these click-through agreements have been operating under. It doesn't seem like anyone that doesn't have a building full of lawyers could stand a chance given the current state of the US legal system. I don't think that Stebbins is going about it the best way but, nontheless, part of me would like to see him prevail in at least some small way. The theory is just preposterous.
Here's an anecdote to illustrate what I mean.
Back in 2002 or so I had just moved into a new apartment. I'm buying furniture and things and I decided to get a big screen rear projection HDTV since they were the new thing back then. The TV gets delivered and then I realize that it didn't have a digital receiver in it, so I couldn't receive HD signals, just analog. No problem; I'll just run down to Best Buy and get one. They only had a few back then so I decided to get one that was made by Samsung and had an integrated DirecTV receiver in it. Why not? I hadn't had satellite in a while, so it seemed to make sense. I paid for the receiver on my credit card. It was a straight transaction; went to the checkout stand, paid by card, item bagged, out the door, nothing else.
When I got home I set up the receiver and a cheap OTA antenna and was able to receive the HD OTA channels just fine. (NFL in HDTV simply rocks). The next weekend when I started to look into the satellite thing I realized, much to my chagrin, that the balcony of my 3rd floor apartment was on the WRONG side of the building and I couldn't see any of the DTV satellites at all. So I abandoned that plan and went with the cable provider that my apartment complex had contracted with for all of my other channels that weren't OTA.
About a year later I got a bill in the mail from DirecTV. They wanted to charge me $150 for, get this, NOT signing up with their service. $150 for nothing. And they claimed in the letter that I had agreed to some type of contractual terms with them at the time of purchase that I would subscribe to their service. What a load of crap. I agreed to no such thing. The only thing I did was sign the little LCD signature pad that Best Buy used for credit card signatures at the time. At no time was there any type of "agreement" discussed or implied by anyone at Best Buy. There was no paperwork other than standard CC reciept. But apparently Best Buy sent them my contact information from my credit card somehow, because they had my mailing address, even though I hadn't given it to them.
These are the types of things that companies are trying to assert with these ridiculous click-throughs. And they're all a bunch of crap. Someone needs to pierce this veil, and if David Stebbins helps in any way, then I'm behind him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why 500 Billion?
It's being talked about. It's getting publicity. I will consider it greed once it starts sending out settlement letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why 500 Billion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While this seems ridiculous on the face of it, a couple things stand out;
MS presents you with an EULA that you are expected to accept as-is. I very much doubt that your clicking the "I Agree" button is specifically recorded anywhere by MS. However, should you amend the agreement and send it back to them, nobody bothers to even look at it. Or if they do, they simply ignore it. Then when he requests arbitration, as stated in the agreement they ignore that as well. When he claims a win as stated in the agreement, they ignore that too.
Call me crazy, but what is the entire section relating to arbitration doing in the EULA if MS is just going to ignore it? How is any part of the agreement enforcible if they can just choose to ignore whatever they like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless the corporations totally own the politcians AND the legal system .... which I believe they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? It's ok for corporations to amend your contracts (sometimes without even notifying you) but you can't amend them only agree to them? If you breach their amendments, you're in the wrong. If you say they've breached your amendments, you're in the wrong. The system is corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]