Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books The Almighty Buck

Woman Wins $10,000 For Reading Fine Print of Terms and Conditions of Travel Insurance Policy (npr.org) 89

Posted by BeauHD from the it-pays-to-read dept.
Georgia high school teacher Donelan Andrews won a $10,000 reward after she closely read the terms and conditions that came with a travel insurance policy she purchased for a trip to England. Squaremouth, a Florida insurance company, had inserted language promising a reward to the first person who emailed the company. NPR reports: "We understand most customers don't actually read contracts or documentation when buying something, but we know the importance of doing so," the company said. "We created the top-secret Pays to Read campaign in an effort to highlight the importance of reading policy documentation from start to finish." Not every company is so generous. To demonstrate the importance of reading the fine print, many companies don't give; they take. The mischievous clauses tend to pop up from time to time, usually in cheeky England. The report continues to highlight a number of different cases where companies have intentionally inserted unusual clauses into their terms of service, knowing people wouldn't read them. Here's one such case: A few years earlier, several Londoners agreed (presumably inadvertently) to give away their oldest child in exchange for Wi-Fi access. Before they could get on the Internet, users had to check a box agreeing to "assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity." According to the Guardian, six people signed up, but the company providing the Wi-Fi said the clause likely wouldn't be enforceable in a court of law. "It is contrary to public policy to sell children in return for free services," the company explained.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woman Wins $10,000 For Reading Fine Print of Terms and Conditions of Travel Insurance Policy More

Woman Wins $10,000 For Reading Fine Print of Terms and Conditions of Travel Insurance Policy

Comments Filter:

  • South park (Score:5, Funny)

    by fluffythedestroyer ( 2586259 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:20PM (#58239250) Homepage
    The human centipede episode. Enough said.
    • "Why won't it read?!?!? Argggggghhhhhh!!!!!"

    • Vamimma paffte! Vamimma paffte! (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'rr take the cuttrefish and aspargus!

      That episode funny only to those who don't read T&C.

      Because if you actually do, which I did, you quickly realize that you CAN. NOT. READ. IT.!
      It is like reading the Necronomicon. You can make the sounds, but the words and sentences make no sense, but to unleash the vile spirits from Hell, Hell & McGill [wikipedia.org], to torment you for profit.

  • The problem with terms and conditions. (Score:3)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:22PM (#58239268)

    The problem is they are very long, and often express very little. They are mostly defining the terms used, and written in a way to avoid loopholes...
    Which I understand why, because people will find ways around contracts, however, this makes the document increasingly difficult to follow and for many to really understand for a simple topic.

    Most software Terms of services.
    1. Don't give a copy to someone else
    2. Don't sue us if something goes wrong

    Of course these simple terms one can be tricky. By Copy, That means I can manipulate a readme file so it is no longer a copy.
    Can I sue if you Something goes right. Or that copy from my friend with that newer license.txt file didn't state anything about not suing you.

    There are too many people trying to trick the system, vs just enduring it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      They're also written in a way that the average person won't understand. It would be better if they'd have taken the $10k and invested it in writing plain language explanations of the terms.
      • The reason that legal documents are so long is due to the fact that they have to hold up in court. Turns out, defining ideas by wrapping them into words doesn't mean that everyone will understand the wording in a way that correctly produces the same idea in the reader, as the writer. When it comes to writing laws, they have to be written in a way that is completely and unmistakably understandable. The problem isn't the looong wording in legal documents, it's that there's a shortage of people that are wil

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Calydor ( 739835 )

          What I would like to see is a "In layman's words" translation after each section; one whose wording is NOT enforced in court, but gives the average reader an idea of whether they're allowed to do something or not.

          • Yes, but the "in layman's terms" statements themselves could be construed as deceptive/misleading. I don't know that there is an escape from this.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Calydor ( 739835 )

              Not if they accurately summarize the legalese. The legalese is still there for you to get the details on payments and rates and so on, and the translation is "You have to pay us every month. If you stop paying we take back OUR stuff."

              • But that's the problem - they can't accurately summarize the legalese to the extent that it would hold up in court. If they could, we wouldn't have the legalese in the first place.

                Plan language is generally used where it can be. The issue is that when lawyers start tearing at plain language, they tend to rip it apart. The only solution is to make it tough enough that they can't do that. Thus the legalese.

                You could flail and attempt to translate, but that would probably need to come with it's own disclaimer that it's not legally binding, and that you should retain your own lawyer to make sure that the translation generally says what the legalese says. But you'd probably need to wrap that statement in enough legalese to cover your ass, and then it's just legalese all the way down.

                • Legalese is there so lawyers can collect money. If you made contracts unenforceable if incomprehensible, then lawyers would have to learn to write good English - which you would expect to be a requirement of their college admission. However, anyone else who was literate could also write contacts - and then lawyers would have to do real work.

                  But laws are made by lawyers, so don't expect changes any time soon.

            • A simple solution is that the company who's selling the product provides free legal counsel by chat or phone to clear up any misunderstandings.

              • Which potentially constitutes a verbal contract, which may or may not override the legal contract being discussed.

                The organization which provided the contract must be careful not to undo the contract with speech, and so it is best to let the person signing seek their own council.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Are you mad?

            I just rejected a contract offer for a *volunteer* position. It had the usual section on intellectual property: we own all your shit.

            If it actually said that in plain language, even as a layman's summary, can you imagine all the hassle with people objecting to the terms?

            • What did you want from the volunteer organization in exchange for imaginary property?

              Usually volunteerism is about generosity.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                If I go to volunteer at a hospital, for example, it's a bit shady to have a clause in the "employment" contract stating that they own all IP I create, on or off premises, at any time. You may consider it imaginary property, but if I create something valuable at, say, my actual job, and said volunteer organization decides they'd like to patent it, there could be trouble.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      This is an insurance contract. It's written to *include* loopholes, in the issuer's favour.

  • The probem is not the not reading! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:26PM (#58239288)

    The problem is, that the T&C are *deliberately* written to hide as many pitfalls as physically possible, so that an any conceivable case, *you* are the one who is duped, and they always have a "get out of jail free" card for when they fuck up, so that they only have to point at the T&C, and go "But you knew and agreed to this impossible-to-interpret-that-way-until-you-are-told-and-then-convincingly-'obvious' term right there on page 24 referring to page 2 and 9 indirectly as stated on page 13, all in 6pt font!".

    It's the brainchild of a sociopathic (actually aka psychopathic) mind that has only a single goal and no qualms of walking over dead bodies, if it gets away with it and there is a buck to be made.

  • The same thing that makes unconscionable terms in a contract such as selling your children into slavery as unenforceable would, I think, also make any outrageous terms that allege to promise a large cash prize for someone who simply asked about it equally unenforceable.

    I mean, it's all very well and good that they stepped up and paid it out, but can someone explain why the company would actually obligated be obligated to honor such terms?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      It's illegal to sell your kids. It is not illegal to give someone $10,000. One of these things is unconscionable and outrageous. The other isn't.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        No, but contracts are supposed to provide mutual benefit aren't they? One party giving up $10k while the other provides nothing in return is not a reciprocative agreement, and I would think that those terms could be considered unconscionable on those grounds.

    • but can someone explain why the company would actually obligated be obligated to honor such terms?

      Because they just got more than $10,000 worth of advertising from their little stunt. It's pretty good marketing.

    • I mean, it's all very well and good that they stepped up and paid it out, but can someone explain why the company would actually obligated be obligated to honor such terms?
      Why would it not?

      The same thing that makes unconscionable terms in a contract such as selling your children into slavery as unenforceable would
      That is illegal, the term above is not ... simple.

  • You would (probably) be surprised (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SGDarkKnight ( 253157 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:42PM (#58239396)

    The most common clause that I've come across is one for photographs. F*ckbook is one that "owns" any photos uploaded to the site. It's actually written quite clearly in the UA. Once I found that out, I started looking more closely at places that asked me to upload photos.

    I was trying to get some large prints made up of some photos that I had taken. Most places will only do up to a certain size in shop; for larger prints, I was asked to upload a copy of the file to their corporate website, the image would be made to the size requested and then sent to the local store for pickup. After reading through the agreement prior to uploading the picture, I found these places all claim to own the picture once uploaded. These were places like Walmart, Costco, Black's Photography... they all had the same clause.

    I know what some of you are thinking... who the fuck cares... for me it was the principle of it. This is my picture, and if by some slim chance I take an absolutely perfect picture that someone wants to purchase, I would risk getting sued because anyplace that I've uploaded it to could claim copyright on it.

    I still skim over UA's or EUA's every now and again. However, I more times than not, I read them... we can always use reading material on the shitter...

    • Re:You would (probably) be surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @04:07PM (#58239550)
      Services like Facebook and printing services need to make copies of your photo to provide their service. As such, you have to grant them a limited license under copyright to make those copies. They have to "own" those copies to be able to process / compress / move / store the photos.

      The thing you have to watch out for is services which try to slip in language granting themselves an unrestricted, unlimited license to reproduce and relicense your work. A new free photo hosting service came up recently, and when I read the terms and conditions it said exactly that. Granting them such a license would allow them to sell your photos without your permission nor giving you any royalties. Most services like Google Photos make clear they're not doing this, by including the phrase "for the purpose of operating this service" somewhere. That intentionally limits their right to make copies of your photo to only what's necessary to provide their service.

      • Exactly, and the main thing with f*ckbook (unless they've changed their terms recently), they can do what they want with any content you've uploaded UNLESS you delete your account. That's where they get fubar'd trying to use your content... (wait for it)... BUT, if any of your friends have shared it on their page or copied it to their page, now deleting your account won't work... you'd have to get whoever copied it to delete their accounts too! They've basically left the wording so vague, they can do whatev

        • Deleting your account has no effect on Facebook. They explicitly note they don't actually delete anything and they retain the rights to anything they've already got. Anything you give facebook they will never ever delete (unless you are a european and have the right to request deletion). People should read the TOS more often.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • There is a big difference between handing over a material possession for repair work and clicking on a link that states you read the ToS and agree to give away the rights to digital work you've uploaded somewhere. You are correct, however, these websites could put a disclaimer in stating all the rights still belong to you, but the sites that I've listed above don't do that. Try reading the ToS and EUA's instead of just assuming.

        • Your car is not a copyrighted work. There is no need to make a copy of your car to work in it.

          Unlike cars it is illegal for them to make a copy of your image without your permission /license. Even an rsync to the printing machine.

          Don't grant them one and they won't copy/work with your image.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      They don't say they "own" them, otherwise if you uploaded the picture to 3 sites then all 3 would "own" them. The probably just require you to grant them license to them. They need the rights to print the pictures. Then they sometimes display them on their photo wall, so they need the license to do that.

      • Not at all. If the terms of use do in fact transfer copyright ownership to them, then the first site you uploaded to would own the pictures, and you would be committing copyright infringement and fraud by uploading those images to the other sites without permission from the copyright holder (the first site).

        Basically, as soon as you transfer the copyright to someone else, it's just as illegal for you to upload a copy of a photo you took, as it is to upload a pirated Hollywood movie.

    • That's interesting, what if the person who uploads the photo has no ownership rights to it? For example, lets say a high school senior had their picture taken by a professional photographer. The standard clause in a professional photographer's contract is that the photographer owns exclusive rights to the photos. Often however many photographers give the client a digital image and a license that permits them to use it for social media. If facebook then takes a professional photographer's photos that was onl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      Just so you know, Slashdot has that exact same boilerplate in their terms and conditions.

  • It is contrary to public policy to sell children in return for free services

    No UNPAID services... indentured servitude is alive and well.

  • I wonder how long... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nuckfuts ( 690967 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:51PM (#58239458)
    that reward went unclaimed? How long was it our there before someone noticed?

  • When I bought my house, they typically give you an hour or two to read through the closure/escrow documents in their office. I read through every single page and found an error. They said "oh! that's obviously wrong! we've been using this contract for five years now, and you're the first one to have noticed it!"

    (it wasn't anything particularly serious - not a case of them asking for something unreasonable. It was just clearly a nonsensical clause.)

  • Send child support checks to... (Score:5, Funny)

    by nbritton ( 823086 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @04:39PM (#58239736)

    A few years earlier, several Londoners agreed (presumably inadvertently) to give away their oldest child in exchange for Wi-Fi access. Before they could get on the Internet, users had to check a box agreeing to "assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity." According to the Guardian, six people signed up, but the company providing the Wi-Fi said the clause likely wouldn't be enforceable in a court of law. "It is contrary to public policy to sell children in return for free services," the company explained.

    Haha... Dear company, thank you for assuming the responsibility of raising my offspring, please make child support checks payable to John Smith and send them to 123 Easy St, Anytown, Anystate 12345 USA.

  • I started such a competition myself long ago... (Score:3)

    by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @05:54PM (#58240186)
    admittedly with a prize significantly lower than 10k, but still a valuable prize. But I did not put the text into some "terms & conditions" jungle, but in the monthly reports that I am asked to write by the supervisor of my supervisor, which is "assumed" to be read by everyone reporting to that supervisor. Guess what, so far no winner found my competition text. But I won a lot of time learning how stupid it would be of me to put significant effort into these reports. They just need to fill a page.

  • Ideally, contracts that are not approved by lawyers on both sides need to be vetted and rated by a government lawyer. Any unusual terms would have to be high lighted and moved to a summary in the first paragraph, along with a general grade, from AF.

    Any terms that the government lawyer deems unenforceable or illegal would automatically grant an F. Corporations routinely put in terms that most lawyers consider to be unenforceable as a form of intimidation.

    President Trump's loyalty gag contracts (https://la

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close