1653
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
1653 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
60070 readers
3398 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My bigger concern is that almost every company now has it in their contracts/terms of services, that all users are not allowed to participate in a lawsuit, be it class action, or court case against them Most of them even have a maximum sue limit too! There's a lot that have a rule that initial arbitration cannot have a lawyer, but that won't be enforced.
Is that a valid and enforceable clause though, even if i clicked "i agree"?
It should be illegal to include unenforceable clauses in any TOS or contract since it deceitfully implies it means something.
Should be, yes. I'm pretty sure it's not in the US though. It's pretty common here.
Of course not. But it won't stop them from trying or spending billions on legal fees to avoid paying out a tiny fraction of that.
No.
Sorry, this may be unpopular, but software license click-through agreements are enforceable.
Source: I'm not a lawyer, but worked in a software contracts office with lawyers, so some of it ruined off. Essentially your legal options are, use the software according to the license agreement, or don't use the software.
A third option would be, I guess, use open source software so you don't deal with that bullshit.
Edit: Part of it is wrapped up in the Uniform Commercial Code, which is a whole bundle of standard laws which is quite complex. Basically you pays your money, and you get a thing, but there are all sports of knobs and levers to handle every contingency. You can nope out of the transaction, but you don't get the thing.
Maybe?
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I've read a lot of EULAs.
However, to challenge that, your have to sue Microsoft, against their team of super-lawyers, the best that Microsoft could buy. And you'd have to do it in the jurisdiction started in the license agreement, which is undoubtedly friendly to Microsoft. And you'd have to have some sort of standing, meaning you have suffered some actual damage from the thing you arguing against, and that you want remedied. So you sue for damages, but it can only be for the amount that you were actually damaged, which is problematic - especially for free Microsoft software. But for paid software, I'm sure there's a return/refund clause which would make you whole.
And you are paying your own lawyer to Microsoft, right? How long do you plan to sue Microsoft? I guarantee they have deeper pockets than you, and can outlast you in court. And remember if you lose the lawsuit, you will probably be countersued for the cost of their lawyers.
Basically the EULAs are written by Microsoft's very expensive lawyers. Other corporations cower in fear of Microsoft's lawyers; I know the ones in my office did. And the rewards you'd get would be a Pyrrhic victory at best. "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Yes, and if you ask a lawyer, they'll say "it depends".
And the thing it usually depends on, is "how much money you got?" ๐