Slashdot Mirror
Man Sues Gateway Because He Can't Read EULA
Scoopy writes "California resident Dennis Sheehan took Gateway to small claims court after he reportedly received a defective computer and little technical support from the PC manufacturer. Gateway responded with their own lawyer and a 2-inch thick stack of legal docs, and claimed that Sheehan violated the EULA, which requires that users give up their right to sue and settle these cases in private arbitration. Sheehan responded that he never read the EULA, which pops up when the user first starts the computer, because the graphics were scrambled — precisely the problem he had complained to tech support in the first place. A judge sided with Sheehan on May 24 and the case will proceed to small claims court. A lawyer is quoted as saying that Sheehan, a high school dropout who is arguing his own case, is in for a world of hurt: 'This poor guy now faces daunting reality of having to litigate this on appeal against Gateway...By winning, he's lost.'"
How thoroughly have these agreements been tested in court prior to this event?
Nobody actually reads EULA's, right? I'd say at least 99.9% of EULAs are just clicked on through without any consideration for the implications.
Does the reality of 99.9% of cases over-rule the law?
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Heh, my sentiment exactly when I read that line. If Gateway sends a lawyer to small claims court with "vast legal and financial resources" the judge is likely to put Gateway's lawyer into a world of hurt. As a small claims court judge its more likely that the judge will be unimpressed by big lawyer shenannigans in a common sense small claims court.
IANAL but I believe that the EULA must be read and 'agreed to' before it takes effect. So even if he read the paper document if he was not able to "click" on "I agree" ( or whatever ) then they can't claim he gave up his rights.
I never boot up a new PC without a Linux installation CD in the CDROM/DVD drive after having first checked the BIOS to make sure that it's set as the first boot device!
So, because I did it this way, I never get to see Gateway's boot screen EULA, therefore I am never bound by it? Or does blowing away the contents of their HDD also violate some obscure law?
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
I'm not entirely sure about a staff attorney, but if he is employed by the same company that is being sued you can probably get away with it - however, it's not an altogether shut and dry decision.
1) The staff attorney has no direct bearing on the matter in his employment capacity and can offer little in terms of evidence in the case.
2) The staff attorney will have to travel to the court location
3) The judge might not be so friendly with a lawyer in the courtroom (small claims judges are a different breed)
In any case, Gateway will be hard pressed to produce an employee who knows all the details of this situation AND who is willing and able to travel to El Dorado. The total judgement in the case at the high side would be less than $5,000.00 and they've already put time, money, and energy into the case that turns further investment into a bad business decision. If he wins the appeal and it still gets kicked to small claims, I expect gateway either will not show up, or they will settle with him prior to trial.
Ya know ... I'm not a big fan of lawyers and stupid lawsuits ... but I'm getting a little sick of giving up all my rights every time I turn around. I've seen this "agree not to sue, and instead, go to binding arbitration with an arbiter of the company's choice" on all sorts of things lately.
... EVER ... not just in respect to the immediate business. Hopefully that won't stand up in court.
The other day, the cable guy came out. He drops off my HD DVR. He hands me his handheld PC and says "sign here". The thing I'm supposed to sign says something like "I agree to all the stuff above". Of course, I can't scroll up and read anything. So, i ask what I'm signing. He tells me it's that I received the DVR. Grr. OK. So I sign. Then it prints out this huge receipt. Among other things, i've given up my right to sue them.
To make it worse, they often are worded such that you can never sue them for anything
The only possible way in which a EULA would be legal would be if it granted you some right that you didn't already have. The legal technicality that is used by software is that copying the program from the install media to your disk and then to RAM requires extra rights (not valid in all jurisdictions). For hardware, there is no such loophole. If you didn't agree to the contract before sale, then they can't enforce it afterwards.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So the take home lesson is that the little guys should never attempt to sue big companies? that even if they have a chance of winning, the big guns will put them "in a world of hurt"? this is how the legal system is supposed work?
I thought the main reason they did that was for the:
"this software is not guaranteed in any way"
part, rather than the
"if you distribute, then..."
parts. ie. it's more a disclaimer of responsibility
I actually wonder if such a screen puts the distributor in violation of the GPL.
The GPL requires that users be given the software under the terms of the GPL, with no further restrictions.
The GPL does not require users to accept it to use the software.
Software which DOES require the users to accept the GPL to use the software is enforcing a restriction not listed in the GPL.
Therefore, the software-mandated license acceptance is in violation of the GPL.
Not sure if this argument would apply if the GPL were taken apart in detail with regard to its restrictions against adding restrictions. I just thought it was an interesting concept...
I read everything I sign before I sign it. That includes lengthy contracts a home purchase agreement. Of course, I read much faster than the vast majority of people, but that's mostly just practice. It's certainly not "utterly impossible".
Is general society so bad at reading that most people can't be bothered to look at what they're agreeing to? I suppose so, or else the title company person at my first home purchase wouldn't have had to move us to another conference room once she realized that I was actually going to read things before I signed them. She apparently expected it to take 5 minutes instead of half an hour and had scheduled the room accordingly.
In any case, the law regarding contracts is that for a contract to be valid, there must have been a "meeting of the minds" where both parties knew substantially what they were agreeing to. Of course, nowadays some people probably sign the statement that they've read and understand the contract without even reading that statement, but some people are stupid that way.
I have lots of experience with all sorts of times when actually knowing what was in a contract I'd signed was useful, even when simply looking up and reading the VA state law online that pertained to a specific company health insurance provision and pointing it out to HR made their lawyers drop all their demands and sent a letter of profuse apology once they figured out that technically they owed me 3x the amount of a $25K claim they had illegally refused to pay until I signed a subordination agreement that I refused to sign (having read it and recognized it as obligating me to things that they had no right to get out of me), but since you don't read things you probably aren't still reading this anyway.
Heck, you probably don't read documentation either. You still have that extra set of screws left over from when you built that bicycle that rattles kind of funny?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
For Windows installers, I like WiX. It's open-source (CPL), yet made by Microsoft and used to package Microsoft software (e.g. SQL server, Office 2007). It also compiles to standard .MSI (or MSI-based .EXE) files, instead of relying on all custom code like some installers do.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Wow. Lot of comments keep saying how Gateway has nothing to win here and it would just be a drop in the bucket to pay the guy off. This suit is HUGE for gateway. There's 2 pillars of their business on the line, not just a single defective PC. First, without an enforceable EULA, they have to change their entire business model (as would pretty much every other software and hardware manufacturer in existence); the entire concept of "Licensed" software under different terms than the original contract of sale depends on them. And I don't think that even most Slashdotters really want the severability of hardware and software agreements to go bye-bye. Just the number of comments suggesting installing Linux without ever booting the bundled Windows weighs pretty heavily. Second, although this is pretty minor considering there is already a Supreme Court decision (CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS (99-1379) 532 U.S. 105 (2001)), binding arbitration clauses. Binding arbitration saves on the order of billions in litigation costs, even if the arbitrations go against the respondents. This case will probably never be heard in Small Claims Court. Gateway will appeal the Judge's decision to remand it to SCC, and probably, under terms of the UCC, get a Federal court to assert jurisdiction. Every hardware and software company around will either file amicus curiae briefs, or really want to, in support of Gateway. This remand to SCC is just a diversion, and not a real "win" at all for Sheehan.
Agreed. In point of fact, just because you signed a piece of paper, doesn't make it a contract. Here's an example:
You rush your loved one to the hospital emergency room, something terrible has happened and now his/her life is in danger. While you are fraught with distress over the possibility of losing him/her, and just generally trying not to lose it, some nameless person from the hospital business office hands you a stack of paperwork, one of which is a document where you "agree" to pay the hospital bills. You are told "fill these out so we can admit her". Does the fact that you signed a piece of paper make the contract valid? The hospitals want you to think so, but the tactic amounts to "sign this or he dies". One can reasonably argue that you did not agree to the terms, regardless of the fact there is a piece of paper with your signature on it.
You are also able to leave the armed forces. These days it's as easy as planting evidence that you're homosexual or saying you object to the practices of the military for personal or religious reasons.
Seriously, I was talking with some military types, and it's REALLY easy to get out. They want soldiers who want to do their job, not disgruntled employees who are issued weapons.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I realize it's de rigeur to say "nuh-uh" to things other slashdotters said that sound legally shaky. Thing is, if you don't know the law either, it turns out not to work very well.
S'pose that's why you were AC, though.
StoneCypher is Full of BS