Slashdot Mirror
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."
Right, but then, of course, who's to say what the important parts are? The company likely wants certain things hidden. They will certainly tell the lawyers what is "important" and what is "not."
I mean, the company may consider it important to let you know that you're forbidden to sell their content. However, they may consider it an unimportant footnote that by entering you grant them power of attorney.
I decided to scroll around it for a minute and happened upon this gem:
I mean, that's stupid. If your incompetent network admin leaks the travel schedules of me and 10,000 other Americans, we "voluntarily" waive the right to sue you?
If I was me (and I am), I would simply choose another airline who doesn't want to try and hoodwink me into something I will regret.
Even worse, malicious companies can abuse paraphrasing to hide important information. For example, the shortened EULA for Kazaa (etc) can tell the user what can be done with the software (share and download "files"), but conveniently leave out the legal issues ("files" means only non-copyrighted material). You'll either end up with a bunch of innocent people in trouble with RIAA, or a mess of lawsuits between Kazaa and RIAA because they trick users into clicking "I agree" to an over-simplified statement without explaining the laws in full to the user.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
I mean, come on. Has it dawned on anyone else out there that these butt-covering disclaimers are becoming meaningless? What I'd really like to see would be a court opinion to the general idea of "the agreement was written in Legalese, which is no more readable to the person agreeing to the contract than Latin or Esparanto. Given that the person agreeing to the contract could not reasonably be expected to hire an attorney to understand his or her rights before clicking OK in order to buy airline tickets (or install Windows, ahem), the EULA as given is essentially an unenforcable abrogation of constitutionally protected rights. Therefore, the EULA in its entirety is invalid."
Of course, some fucknut tort lawyers would have to get real jobs, but I promise to lose 10^-30 seconds of sleep over that one.
Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming. Is that my alarm clock?
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Let's look at a few examples:
Engage in any other conduct that is, or that American Airlines deems to be, in conflict with this Agreement.
Now this one is the killer. Notice the OR in there. This one simply says that any conduct which they dislike is in violation of the agreement, whether such conduct is prohibited by the agreement itself or not. In effect this single statement renders the rest of the text meaningless.
American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines.
Nonsense ! By putting up a website they implicitly allow linking to it. If they don't want people to link to it, they can take it down. "Provide reference" is even more ridiculous. Does this mean it's forbidden for me to tell anyone where to find the site ? If not, what does it mean ?
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. Again nonsense. They assert that simply by accessing their website, I have to consent to their "agreement". What stops me from sending them "communications" with a similar assertment in it ?
You understand that American Airlines owns any and all information or material that you post on a Forum. You agree that you waive all of the rights you have to any information or material that you post on a Forum. American Airlines has the right to do whatever it wishes with that information or material, including but not limited to deleting or editing for any reason any posting by you.
So they own everything, yet in the next paragraph they say that whatever you post to the site is fully your responsibility and they have no obligations whatsoever. Now, which will it be ? Is it *their* material or *my* material ?
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 !
It goes on, but I think further commenting is needless, the "agreement" is clearly bunk, and I'd like to believe it'd never be upheld in any court in the world. Possible exception for the USA, I recommend people unlucky enough to live there to seek asylum elsewhere.
Nobody posted any of the contents. Of course it's legal to mention it. Besides, you don't have to accept the agreement to read it, or comment on it so you are not bound by it in any way.
"The last paragraph, however, is the greatest laugh-inducer:
:)"
If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be stricken from this Agreement without affecting the validity or enforceability of any other provision.
So, they could essentially put "You must name your first child after American Airlines", have it be struck down as idiotic, but the rest of the agreement still stands...nice
You must get a lot of laughs then, because I've seen that clause in a LOT of online and offline agreements. Basically if the law says a particular clause doesn't hold up in court the rest isn't invalid. IANAL of course so I can't say how legal that position is.
If I cut out some of the synonyms from the clause (which seems like it should be OK, as I'm only making it say less, not more), I get:
You agree to [...] indemnify [...] American Airlines [...] from and against any and all [...] taxes [...] resulting from your use of the Site,
It still seems to me that the earlier poster's interpretation is consistent with the clause: If I use the site (to buy a ticket), and taxes arise from this use of the site (as they would) then I agree to indemnify (compensate) American Airlines for those taxes.
If that's not what it means, then it is not very clear ...
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
Are you sure? You'd better read it again.
It's still okay? Well, you'd better read it again tomorrow, just to be sure.
From the agreement:
After reading this far, I came to the conclusion that there's no point reading any further, since they can change the agreement at any time, and you agree to let them.They could conceivably have changed the entire text of the agreement between the time you get the original text and the time you post your acceptance. (This is especially likely given the amount of time it would take to read and understand the entire agreement).
I don't know about your experience with these things, but this looks like about the most offensive language I've ever seen in a set of terms and conditions like this.
Living better through chemicals
Airmail, anyone?