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)."

Open Directory License

[sepluv]

Would this affect clause 4 of the ODP (DMoz) License [dmoz.org] (and similar copyright licenses)? Maybe that isn't considered a contract or only having to make "reasonable efforts" to check for changes is acceptable.

Re:Not a big issue

[ushering05401]

The main point, IMHO, is that the courts appear to be catching up with the tech world.

This is not an isolated incident, there have been numerous clarifications coming out that will help the internet become a more legally defined avenue through which to conduct business.

To see another example of courts starting to actually understand what they are ruling on you need look no further than today's /. front page... Check out the "Judge Permits eBay's "Buy It Now" Feature" story.

I have been following both court rulings and political decisions related to the internet for some time now, and I am finally starting to see some glimmer of hope that the most empowering utility of our time will not go down the crapper due to the ignorance of those empowered to regulate it.

Of course, there is still the net neutrality issue... but at least there is some movement toward understanding.

Regards.

Uninteresting

[Cadallin]

These "contracts" are mostly invalid in the first place. Conditions like "waving the right to sue" make them so. At least in the USA, you always have a right to sue, always. You may not win, but that's an entirely separate issue. A judge and/or jury is completely free to choose whether or not to take any such agreement into account or not. These are largely included as a psychological weapon, if you're dumb enough to think you can't sue, then you're less likely to.

The conditions cited in this article are, however, particularly asinine. What if a car dealership could change the terms of the sale any time they wanted after the sale, without your approval? How well do you think that would hold up?

Re:Kind of sad

[Volante3192]

Ahh, but you made sure to state that the changes are "signed by both parties."

That's entirely different. But what if two parties signed a lease agreement, then the property owner goes and makes changes to it and then sues you for violating the new changes that you never signed to.

Re:Kind of sad

[sco08y]

The point is, is that these companies are not being fair about the renegotiations. There are actually no negotiations going on at all. They just change the contract, tell you if you don't like it, you can leave, and you may not even have any idea that we've changed the contract until it's too late.

IANAL, but taking Google's TOS as an example, I think it's a license, not a contract. Reasons: 1. They don't call it a contract; it's a "legal agreement." 2. There are no negotiations, and no way to submit ammendments. 3. You're not paying for the services and they're not promising to deliver anything. 4. You are never identified as being party to the agreement.

It's perfectly reasonable to update a license. For example, if someone comes to my house, I'm implicitly granting them license to come in. If I decide one day that I'm not going to allow smoking in my house, I don't have to tell them about that, even if I let them smoke in it earlier.