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.

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.

The key part that he "inserted" into his new terms was this nugget:

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.

Filed Under: arbitration, david stebbins, terms of service
Companies: google

On the Internet, Google+ Knows You're A TOS-Violating 10-Year-Old Dog

from the unintended-consequences dept

theodp writes

"In its tear-jerker 'Dear Sophie' Google Chrome ad, a father creates a Gmail account (dear.sophie.lee@gmail.com) for his just-born daughter to preserve memories of her childhood. So, how does that work out in real life? Not so good, at least in the case of 10-year-old Alex Sutherland, who the WSJ reports was reduced to tears after being notified that the Gmail account his father created on his behalf two years earlier would be deleted because the Google+ Profile Alex created triggered a Google Terms of Service age violation. 'You made my son cry, Google,' wrote blogger Martin Sutherland. 'I'm not inclined to forgive that.' Not to pile on, but Alex may also be persona non grata at Khan Academy, where learning under the age of 13 can also constitute a TOS violation."

To be fair, the "under 13" age issue is not something that should be blamed on Google, Khan Academy or any other site (and, really, if theodp wanted to be accurate, he could list most of the top sites on the internet, who all have this same restriction). It's (of course!) the result of poorly thought out legislation. Namely, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act -- another one of these "for the children" laws that politicians love to pass without thinking about the unintended consequences. Here, as in many cases, the intentions may be good: to prevent websites from collecting too much info from children who don't quite recognize what they're doing, but the actual results are that most sites simply put in their terms of service that the site is not for people under 13, even if everyone assumes that those under 13 still use those sites.

Of course, even bringing up how silly this is can lead to backlash. When Mark Zuckerberg recently suggested that perhaps the law needed some rethinking to make it more reasonable for those under 13 to use useful parts of the internet, it was dubbed "controversial", and he had to clarify his remarks to make clear that he wasn't trying to get under 13 kids on the site any time soon.

Either way, it does seem silly for Google to put out a commercial in which a father creates an email address for someone under 13... when it's taking away accounts from others who do the same thing...

Filed Under: coppa, terms of service, under 13
Companies: google, khan academy

Twitter Tries To Move Patent Trial By Saying All Twitter Users Agree To Settle Legal Disputes On Twitter's Home Turf

from the nice-try,-but-no dept

It's no secret that patent holders suing for infringement prefer certain venues. And, many tech companies based in the Bay Area like to try to get those cases moved to a local court instead. There's been some efforts to move cases to better locations, but thanks to some tricky games, lawyers can frequently keep the cases where they were filed.

Apparently Twitter thought that it might try some tricky lawyers' games of its own to get one case transferred. The company tried arguing that because the patent holder, Dinesh Agarwal, who was suing them was also a Twitter user, it meant he'd agreed to Twitter's terms of service... which state that all lawsuits against the company must be brought in San Francisco. That's pretty clearly a tortured reading of the Terms of Service, because this lawsuit had nothing, whatsoever, to do with Agarwal's use of the service... and the judge didn't buy it, allowing the case to continue in Virginia, where it was filed. As the judge noted, agreeing to this "would potentially foster satellite litigation in every patent case involving a social networking market participant," basically guaranteeing that such lawsuits could only be brought where social networking companies wanted them to be brought.

Filed Under: jurisdiction, location, patents, terms of service
Companies: twitter

Facebook, Roger Ebert And The Pointlessness Of The Jerk Patrol

from the it-doesn't-work dept

There's been a lot of talk recently about issues concerning "corporate censorship" after Facebook shut down Roger Ebert's page, supposedly because some people complained about his comments (on Twitter, not Facebook) concerning a death, which some took offense to. A lot of people are jumping on the "censorship" bandwagon, and part of it makes me wonder if we need a different word. When a private company "censors," it's quite different from when a government "censors," and using the same word often leads to confusion.

But, perhaps a larger point of this is how private companies now have tremendous say over what speech they will and will not allow. That's legal, but it leads to a certain arbitrariness, as was demonstrated here, with many people thinking Facebook went too far. The company later tried to claim it was a "mistake," but not many people seem to believe that.

However, I think where this gets more interesting is in raising a separate issue: the total pointlessness and arbitrariness of the "jerk patrol." Some people apparently disliked Ebert's comments. That's fair enough, but does a few "offended" people mean he should lose his account? That's what makes lots of people quite uncomfortable. As it should. And yet, as all of this is happening, there are all these efforts to try to criminalize being a "jerk" online. But, as this little kerfuffle shows, what is and what is not "a jerk" or "offensive" is totally subjective, in most cases, and offending one person is hardly a reason to take action against the speaker. It's too bad that Facebook doesn't seem to recognize that, but it's even scarier when governments pass laws without understanding it.

Filed Under: censorship, jerks, roger ebert, terms of service
Companies: facebook

PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks

from the political-pressure dept

Over the weekend, Paypal became the latest company to cut off Wikileaks' account, saying that it was a "terms of service" violation -- the same excuse Amazon gave. Of course, Wikileaks had been using Paypal for quite some time before this, so it seems pretty clear that the reasoning was (yet again) political pressure put on American companies, threatening them for working with Wikileaks. What's funny about all of this, of course, is that it's only going to serve to give Wikileaks more attention, and drive up demand for competing services to these US companies overseas. In an effort to "stop" access to information that is widely accessible, all the US is really doing is (a) promoting that information more while (b) harming the reputation of American companies.

Filed Under: terms of service, wikileaks
Companies: paypal, wikileaks

Judge Refuses To Dismiss Criminal Charges For Violating Ticketmaster's Terms Of Service; Trial Moves Forward

from the read-the-fine-print dept

We've discussed how it's becoming unfortunately common for companies to use the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to turn things that should not be criminal cases into criminal cases. What's often done is that someone will find a part of a website's terms of service that was not obeyed, and then use that to claim that the access to the website was "unauthorized," thus triggering criminal charges under the CFAA. We've seen it in the recent Facebook/Power.com lawsuit as well as, most famously, in the Lori Drew case, which eventually was dismissed, only after a jury ruled on the matter.

During the summer, we had discussed how the same issue was coming up in a case involving a ticket reseller who had created computer systems to get by Ticketmaster's attempts to limit ticket sales. They would get around purchase limits and things like CAPTCHAs with some automated software that, from the sound of things, was incredibly effective. Now, violating the site's terms of service might be a contractual violation, but a criminal one? As much as people might dislike scalpers buying up tickets to popular events and then reselling them, that doesn't mean we should let those feelings cloud the specific legal questions.

Unfortunately, a judge has decided to punt on the matter, at least for now, refusing to dismiss the case at this stage, and setting a date for a trial next year. While the judge is aware of the Lori Drew case, she claimed that the fact pattern there was really different and, anyway, the decision on the appropriateness of using the CFAA was ruled on after the trial. That last point seems rather meaningless. The appropriateness of the CFAA doesn't seem like something that requires a trial. In the Drew case, the trial was a total waste for everyone involved, because after it was decided, the judge decided to toss everything out anyway. Why not save everyone the time and handle it up front?

Filed Under: hacking, terms of service
Companies: ticketmaster

Librarians Violating Netflix Terms Of Service To Better Serve Patrons

from the gotta-go-with-the-librarians-here... dept

Rose M. Welch was the first of a few of you to send in the news that librarians have realized that Netflix is a great way to expand the catalog of DVDs that can be loaned out, even though it violates Netflix's terms of service. Netflix seems a bit ambivalent about the whole thing, saying that they don't like it, and they would expect librarians would obey the terms of service (which this does not), but that they really don't want to sue libraries -- perhaps recognizing how awful that would look from a PR standpoint. While I applaud Netflix not going straight to the lawyers, is it really that big of a deal that libraries are using Netflix in this manner?

Filed Under: dvds, libraries, sharing, terms of service
Companies: netflix

If Sarah Palin Has Someone Else Doing Her Facebooking, Is She A Criminal?

from the according-to-facebook dept

The EFF has been working to make people aware of the ridiculous consequences of the really ridiculous stretching of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to make such things as violating the terms of service on a website a criminal offense. As part of this, they're now pointing out that rumors that Sarah Palin doesn't write her own Facebook messages and Tweets could mean that Palin is violating the law and criminally liable, since it goes against Facebook's terms of service:

The problem is that Facebook's terms of use prohibit several things that Palin and her ghostwriter may have done. Specifically, it forbids users from:

• accessing someone else's account
• sharing their passwords to let someone else access their accounts
• transferring their accounts to someone else (without Facebook's written permission)
• providing false personal information
• "facilitating" or "encouraging" someone else to violate the terms of use

If Palin and her ghostwriter are in fact violating Facebook's terms of use, that probably doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. Just by surfing around the internet, we "agree" to dozens of website terms of use every day, usually before we even read them. These terms can say anything a website operator wants, and often specifically note that they can be changed at any time without notice (or with minimal notice).

But violating a website's terms of use is a big deal, according to Facebook. In fact, Facebook says it's a federal crime.

The point, of course, is not to accuse Sarah Palin of criminal behavior, but to point out the ridiculousness of saying that terms of service violations are a criminal offense, as many have been doing (including Facebook) in various lawsuits.

Filed Under: fraud, sarah palin, terms of service
Companies: facebook

Good News: Violating Terms Of Service Is Not Hacking; Bad News: Circumventing Weak Tech Blocks Might Be

from the some-good,-some-bad dept

We've been covering the ridiculous lawsuit that Facebook has been pursuing against Power.com for a while now, specifically worrying about how, if Facebook prevailed, it could mean that violating an online terms of service in accessing your own data, could make you a criminal. That outcome seemed ridiculous, but the way Facebook read federal computer fraud statutes, it was possible. Thankfully, the court has shot down that argument.

But it's not all good news. In the same ruling, the court did say that Power.com (an aggregator of data from various social networks) still may have violated computer hacking laws by changing its IP address. That's because Facebook had blocked Power.com's old IP address to try to block the site from accessing user account data. As the EFF explains:

In other words, it may be a crime to circumvent technological barriers imposed by a website, even if those measures are taken only to enforce the terms of service through code. There's nothing inherently wrong or unlawful about avoiding IP address blocking, and there are valid reasons why someone might choose to do so, including to sidestep anticompetitive behavior by other Internet services. As long as an end user is authorized to access a computer and the way she chooses doesn't cause harm, she should be able to access the computer any way she likes without committing a crime.

Of course, given the way the DMCA handles circumvention for copyright (it's not legal even if for legal uses), perhaps there's some precedent for this kind of ridiculous, totally counter-intuitive outcome.

Filed Under: circumvention, fraud, hacking, terms of service
Companies: facebook, power.com

Not Reading Ticketmaster's Terms Of Service Shouldn't Make You A Criminal

from the yet-again dept

There have been an awful lot of similar stories lately, but it is really quite troubling just how much the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is being abused to turn actions like not reading a website's terms of service into a criminal offense. We had just recently discussed how this was playing out in a lawsuit involving Facebook and Power.com, but it's showing up elsewhere as well. In fact, the judge in the Facebook/Power.com case apparently based the decision on an earlier case involving Ticketmaster and a ticket reseller which used automated means to order tickets, that it could then resell.

In a similar case, it appears that there has been a criminal indictment of the company Wiseguy Tickets, who similarly automated ticket purchases from Ticketmaster's website. This isn't to say that ticket scalpers and resellers who buy up all the tickets aren't necessarily a problem, but should they be criminally liable because they violate a website's terms of service? The EFF and some others have now filed an amicus brief in the case, suggesting that this is a ridiculous outcome. No one should be criminally liable for not obeying the terms of service on a website. If that's the case, it's easy to make anyone a criminal. I could just quickly put up a terms of service that says something as ridiculous as "you must be 8 feet tall to read this website." And, if you're not, you've then violated the terms, and are guilty of criminal hacking under the CFAA -- which could potentially result in jail time. That makes no sense, and the EFF is hoping the judge recognizes this:

"Under the government's theory, anyone who disregards -- or doesn't read -- the terms of service on any website could face computer crime charges," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "That gives Ticketmaster and other online services extraordinary power over their users: the power to decide what is criminal behavior and what is not. Price comparison services, social network aggregators, and users who skim a few years off their ages could all be criminals if the government prevails."

Filed Under: computer fraud, hacking, terms of service
Companies: ticketmaster