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.

“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?!”

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).

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

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