Court Rules Website Terms of Service Agreement Completely Invalid

another random user sends this excerpt from Business Insider: "In January, hackers got hold of 24 million Zappos customers' email addresses and other personal information. Some of those customers have been suing Zappos, an online shoes and clothing retailer that's owned by Amazon.com. Zappos wants the matter to go into arbitration, citing its terms of service. The problem: A federal court just ruled that agreement completely invalid. So Zappos will have to go to court—or more likely settle to avoid those legal costs. Here's how Zappos screwed up, according to Eric Goldman, a law professor and director of Santa Clara University's High Tech Law Institute: It put a link to its terms of service on its website, but didn't force customers to click through to it."

Comments

Changes incoming

[Twintop]

You can bet the farm that because of this all major online retailers have already started work to change their registration and ordering systems to implement a clickthrough rather than ticking a checkbox that says 'I agree'.

Re:Changes incoming

[Tough Love]

You can bet the farm that because of this all major online retailers have already started work to change their registration and ordering systems to implement a clickthrough rather than ticking a checkbox that says 'I agree'.

Yes, piling idiocy on top of idiocy and making the Web a yet more unpleasant place to go about your business. The real problem is the idiodic culture of forcing web users to sign away their firstborn or whatever other terms suit the fancy of the online operator, in order to use their service. Do I have to sign a terms of service to buy groceries at a grocery store? No? Then what is this idiocy about needing to sign agreements in order to transact simple business on the web? Are the courts too lazy to start ruling on what is and is not fair, as has been the tradition for several hundred years of common law? (Rhetorical question of course.) Instead, the courts seem determined to make life as unpleasant as possible for average citizens, and they seize on this new internet thing as a marvelous new tool for achieving that. I say it's time to start replacing judges.

Re:Changes incoming

[Jafafa Hots]

I dunno... when I let my hair grow long as I do at times, suddenly every store I go into has a "long-standing policy" that I never seemed to notice before that allows them to demand that I leave my $150 backpack with them (with no insurance against theft, etc.) if I want the privilege of buying their stuff.

If I dress differently or have short hair, the stores don't seem to have that policy so much.

It's getting to the point where even brick and mortar stores consider it a privilege for you to be able to shop there.

You only get the advertised sale price if you use their "club card" which has your personal identifying information plus now your spending habits, etc.

Let's not even get started on places like Costco that charge you admission to get in to buy a tray of muffins.

It's not that the balance has shifted - the balance has been dismantled, removed and sold for scrap.

Re:Changes incoming

[TheRealMindChild]

Are the courts too lazy to start ruling on what is and is not fair

Who said life was fair? Who said the law is supposed to be fair? Show me SOMETHING to back it up

Was also their "we can change this contract at wil

[Derek Pomery]

That the judge found improper.

So. Not only a contract they wanted to make binding without any user agreement, but also a contract where the language could be rewritten after you agreed to it, without having to sign off on the new language.

Re:Next up... a Quiz based on small print...

[Hatta]

Great idea. Can we get Congress to undergo the same when they vote on a bill too?