The Web's Longest Disclaimer

An anonymous reader writes "American Airlines are nominated for the 'longest website enduser agreement' category with customers requiring to accept this mammoth 'I accept' dialog before using their site. The tale of the tape includes: 181 paragraphs; 3482 words; and 22411 characters. However even mentioning this is probably in violation of the text."

Comments

Re:They wrote it for a reason

[thejk]

Actually, they probably cannot enforce that, if it comes to it. For a reference, see the recent ruling for Comb v. PayPal. Basically, you cannot make end users give up their basic legal rights through EULA, etc., if I understand the ruling correctly. But, hey, IANAL. Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that EULAs and most legal documents are, well, written in abstruse legalese. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complex legalese in favor of plain engligh? I have found the following sites on google, but they are mostly for other countries -- except one that refers to the Michigan Bar effort.

• UK: www.plainenglish.co.uk/law.html
• India: http://www.globallawreview.com/lr8.html
• Michigan Bar: http://www.michbar.org/committees/penglish/columns /131.html

Re:it is a violation!

[pacc]

Does this mean Google is infringing?

Since when are you bound to a contract by reading it?

" If you do not intend to be legally bound by these terms and conditions, do not access and use the Site. "

The obvious solution would be to use
the google cache instead if you want to find out if it's legal for you to go to the Site at all.

Editors....do your job!

[harlows_monkeys]

I went to the American Airline site, and the story is simply wrong. You can use the site just fine, without ever seeing that agreement. You only see the agreement when you try to sign up for their frequent flyer program.

There is nothing at all newsworthy here, for nerds, or anyone else. Come on, editors...don't accept junk like this.

Re:Editors....do your job!

[ninthwave]

Yes but the agreement states that it is for the Site completely

"Introduction

Thank you for visiting the American Airlines web site titled "aa.com" (the "Site"). In return for gaining access to the Site and using it, you agree to be bound by the following Agreement without limitation or qualification, so please carefully review this Agreement before proceeding. If you do not intend to be legally bound by these terms and conditions, do not access and use the Site. "

I think they are trying to have a Data Protection Privacy agreement and hired a software lawyer who confused the whole thing and created a useless piece of dribble drivel.

You can't violate the text

[noz]

"...even mentioning this is probably in violation of the text."

You can't violate the EULA if you don't accept it. If you don't accept it, I guess you can't fly American Air!

Re:Hide the Real Stuff

[Jon Peterson]

You said:

You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless American Airlines and its affiliates from and against any and all claims, demands, proceedings, suits and actions, including any related liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, deficiencies, penalties, taxes, levies, fines, judgments, settlements, expenses (including legal and accountants' fees and disbursements) and costs (collectively, "Claims"), based on, arising out of or resulting from your use of the Site,


This says that (among other things) if you buy a ticket on the site, and they make a profit, leading to the need to pay taxes, you need to pay those taxes for them. Really. Read it again !

I say

AARRGGH!! No it freaking doesn't. This is one of the most standard clauses in any contract anywhere, and it says that if _I_ incur penalties, taxes, etc as a result of using AA's service, then AA are not responsible.

I'm not a lawyer, but my job is to provide technical advice on legal contracts that are software and technology related, so I get used to this kind of language. Please try to be accurate...

Re:No web crawlers?

[trezor]

They're corporate *bastards*, not sysadmins. You think the webmaster wrote this? :)

The EULA prpbably phorbited you to check for robots.txt as well. Just linking the EULA was, according to the EULA, not allowed for anyone but aa, if I remember correctly.

So... What's the deal? You make it public. And say it's not for public use. Scizofrenic weirdos.

Verisign has them beat...

[nachoboy]

...by a long shot. Check out their service agreement. A whopping 237 paragraphs, 31,999 words, and 202,556 characters.

Re:Verisign has them beat...

[lightweave]

Actually this is a service agreement and not a EULA that allows you to access their website. I would expect from such a contract to be more lengthy then a simple EULA. I wrote such a contract myself and it also got rather long because you should cover all szenarious you possibly encounter with your customers. This way you don't have to go to court and can settle many things more easily.

On the other hand I find this paragraph from VeriSign rather refreshing: --
2. Use of Information. You acknowledge and agree that we may (but are not obligated to) collect, store, use and/or publish information regarding, and data related to, your VeriSign Web Site, including, but not limited to, your domain name, URL and traffic counts. Possible uses of such information include, but are not limited to, marketing, the development and distribution of lists concerning traffic patterns of (or visits to) web sites and VeriSign member web sites and for other general commercial purposes. Use of any personally identifiable information will be in accordance with VeriSign's Privacy Policy.
--
So basically they say that they are allowed to monitor all your traffic and sell them to whoever they chose. Nice one. The best is, that they use their own privacy policy which is subject to changes. So agreeing to this you have no privacy at all. At the least you are at the mercy of VeriSign.

Re:Hide the Real Stuff

[Surak]

And then at the end of it all, there's the biggest CYA: You may not: S. Engage in any other conduct that is, or that American Airlines deems to be, in conflict with this Agreement.

(IANAL)

They're basically saying "You can't do anything we don't like." Whether the clause is enforceable or not depends on what you did. It's actually pretty useless as a clause, IMHO, because the only thing that clause can protect is their private property and IP rights.

American Airlines will not treat as confidential any communications you send to us by electronic mail or otherwise. American Airlines has no obligation to refrain from publishing, reproducing, or otherwise using your communications in any way and for any purpose.

Really? So they can publish my credit card number on their Web site or in their TV commercials?

Real answer: Nope. The clause is not enforceable in many cases because they have a duty of care to protect any confidential information you give them regardless of what this clause says.

Crap like this falls along the same lines as the signs on public lockers that say "Store stuff here at your own risk." Regardless of the sign, if the locker you use becomes broken into because, for instance, the locker was in a state of disrepair, the owner of the locker as not met his duty of care and is therefore guilty of negligence and is liable to you for damages.

Re:Hide the Real Stuff

[vadim_t]

What can you download with Kazaa has absolutely no place in its EULA. EULAs are supposed to be used to impose some conditions on the user (reverse engineering) that somehow affect the creators of the tool. What files you download with it shouldn't matter. Downloading copyrighted material you don't have rights to is already illegal, EULA or no EULA.

It's like having an EULA for a car that says you agree not to use it for kidnapping. Since that's already illegal it makes no sense to put it there.

Re:Hide the Real Stuff

[GigsVT]

In legal terms, the contract is revokable at the option of the minor. Most contracts with minors are this way except for a few exceptions, contracts for artistic work of the minor, sports, certain contracts for health care services to the minor. Emancipated or married minors can enter binding contracts as if they were adults normally also.

The thing is, since they said "You warrant that you are 18" in the contract, a minor cannot agree to it without making a material misrepresentation, so the contract is not binding to AA either. Either side can declare the contract null and void at any time, but neither is forced to.

That's my understanding of it.

As always, IANAL. Not legal advice.

PayPal TOS Much Longer

[Bob9113]

The PayPal Agreement is 373 paragraphs, 19,127 words, 119,761 characters.

Try not accepting.

[JetScootr]

I clicked "I do not accept" and it appears to have let me in anyway. Maybe the EULA is optional?

Re:Hide the Real Stuff

[Christianfreak]

There's UCITA at work. Wasn't there a big fuss about a hundred and fifty years ago about one state's laws being enforced in another? That and something about those who forget the lessons of history...

I live in Texas and as far as I know we have not passed UCITA. Texas legislature only meets 6 months out of every 24 to keep us from passing too many laws (it doesn't always work but it helps). The reason that American Airlines wants to be governed by the laws of Texas is because the are headquartered in Dallas. Probably in there so when someone sues them they can point to the clause and say "See you have to come here to fight us" and they don't have to send an army of lawyers to North Dakota or something like that.

Re:Hide the Real Stuff

[Blue Stone]

Tracked down the urls of the site:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/Business/Legal+Powers/unfair +what+is.htm [what the OFT of the UK considers unfair]

http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/extyc76c3zvz6n5 pvdac3u3obr637fs3mbynvd2qhkyzgrgenny6xridnc2mwasb3 2trgh4si4gdg2bt2gp5viz4jvh/oft311-annexea.pdf [a 192kb pdf of examples of unfair terms that the OFT corrected or removed from contracts... worth a read, it includes a couple from Microsoft, most from Double-Glazing companies, and a couple from Scan.co.uk, a company who I've been made out of pocket by, because of their contract, and their lies that they'd re-imburse me despite them (they didn't).... anyway some of the examples are very funny.]