Web Contracts Can't Be Changed Without Notice

RZG writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on July 18th that contracts posted online cannot be updated without notifying users (PDF of ruling). 'Parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side,' the court wrote. This ruling has consequences for many online businesses, which took for granted their right to do this (see for example item 19 in Google's Terms of Service)."

Good!

[iknownuttin]

It always pisses me off that some web services say in their very long agreement that they have the right to change the terms at any time. I refuse to do business with those people.

Talk America....their telemarketers used to always bother me everyday (before the Do Not Call List) and they always gave me the creeps.

The appeals court also said the district court was wrong to grant Talk America's request for arbitration.
Arbitration panels are usually loaded with industry folks and you, the consumer, will rarely get a fair shake.

...as well as how they use their personal information after mergers or acquisitions is one that privacy experts and others have been grappling with since the emergence of e-commerce in the 1990s.
When I took a class on buying businesses, one of the ways to finance the deal was to sell off the customer list of the company you're acquiring - regardless of any privacy statement they may have stated to their customers. It's not just eCommerce sites. It's also the Mom and Pop bakery.

I'm all for capitalism and business and everything, but, sometimes, some of the things that are done makes my stomach churn. It does give me some empathy and understanding for the anti-corp folks here, though.

Re:And of Course

[Wuhao]

No, the 9th Circuit is a federal court, and so this decision has consequences nation-wide.

Re:Kind of sad

[Penguinisto]

Actually, no. Any clause that has the potential or actuality of violating your rights as granted by law is automatically null and void. It's pretty obvious that "we can change the terms at any time" has a huge potential of doing just that.

The reason they still get written in is because most people haven't the clue or desire to assert that aspect of contract law.

/P

Re:And of Course

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, that's true, but it's not binding precedent except for the district courts under the 9th Circuit. For everyone else, it is merely influential.

Re:And of Course

[Anonymous Coward]

The 9th circuit is overturned by the supreme court more often than cmdrtaco changes his underwear. However, any company based in california/west coast is affected by this ruling, so it does affect a lot of internet users.

Re:Probably not a binding contract anyway...

[stubear]

Why is this comment moderated insightful? Whoever moderated this insightful did so because they agreed with the comment but nowhere is it insightful. "Probably not" means the commenter has some deep desire to have this legal issue considered not legally binding but at no time have EULAs or ToS contracts been deemed NOT legally binding. Until such a time as they are tested in court, they most certainly ARE legally binding. Will a company enforce them? Well, you might get a "probably not" for that question but again, until research into the issue has been done, one should not try to answer the question at all, stating instead "no one knows for sure, however, I am...[fill in your position here]."

Moderators, please quit moderating comments insightful simply because you agree with the comment. Make sure the comment is actually insightful first.

Re:Not a big issue

[freedom_india]

Apple does it all the time with its various updates.
Without accepting the new license, itunes does NOT open.

Click/shrink wrap terms usually binding

[AHumbleOpinion]

Actually clickwrap contracts have often been ruled valid. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=257287&cid=200 34401 [slashdot.org] to avoid a redundant thread.

Re:Clickwrap/shrinkwrap usually binding contracts

[Courageous]

In the U.S. I believe it is called an adhesion contract and they are generally valid as long as the terms are reasonable, reasonable to a judge not slashdot readers. :-) To be unreasonable, or more accurately legally unconscionable, oppression or surprise is usually involved.


Or something that wouldn't have been agreed to, had any reasonable person actually read the contract. Another way of looking at it is that if the offerror of the contract had reason to believe it wouldn't have been agreed to had the terms been known, the terms are definitionally "unconcionable."

C//

Re:And of Course

[cpt kangarooski]

No, that reputation is undeserved. The 9th Circuit is huge, and so it sends many more cases to the Supreme Court than any of the other circuits do. However, in percentage terms, it's actually pretty average IIRC. It really needs to be split, but unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a good way of doing that.

Re:And of Course--An Excellent Reason...

[anagama]

What full damage? This sounds like a very reasonable opinion. All it says is that if one party decides to change the terms of a contract, it has to tell the other party (and I would assume without RTFO -- if the other party doesn't like the new terms, the other party can say no). Without this, you could "sign" a contract in July that says "we will keep your info private" and then in October, without notice to you, it could be changed to "you owe us one million dollars". I guess you think that would be fair? Give me your address, I have a harmless little contract I want to send you.

Re:Not a big issue

[Gabrill]

The program that plays the files you licensed does not open, thereby depriving you of their use.

Re:Not a big issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The program that plays the files you licensed does not open, thereby depriving you of their use.

The program that plays the files you licensed DOES open, so that you can continue to play those files, as long as you don't install the upgrade. Click "decline" on the EULA.