The 'Terms and Conditions' Reckoning Is Coming (bloomberg.com)

Everyone from Uber to PayPal is facing a backlash against their impenetrable legalese. From a report: Personal finance forums online are brimming with complaints from hundreds of PayPal customers who say they've been suspended because they signed up before age 18. PayPal declined to comment on any specific cases, but says it's appropriate to close accounts created by underage people "to ensure our customers have full legal capacity to accept our user agreement." While that may seem "heavy-handed," says Sarah Kenshall, a technology attorney with law firm Burges Salmon, the company is within its rights because the users clicked to agree to the rules -- however difficult the language might be to understand.

Websites have long required users to plow through pages of dense legalese to use their services, knowing that few ever give the documents more than a cursory glance. In 2005 security-software provider PC Pitstop LLC promised a $1,000 prize to the first user to spot the offer deep in its terms and conditions; it took four months before the reward was claimed. The incomprehensibility of user agreements is poised to change as tech giants such as Uber Technologies and Facebook confront pushback for mishandling user information, and the European Union prepares to implement new privacy rules called the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The measure underscores "the requirement for clear and plain language when explaining consent," British Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham wrote on her blog last year.

Comments

I don't click Agree...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just ask my 4 year old to do it.

Re: Slimy

[bill_mcgonigle]

Paypal wasn't slimy at its founding (were you around then?). After the Feds rekt its business model the interesting people left, leaving it run by the kind of people who implement really bad policies.

Didn't South Park parody this?

[UnknownSoldier]

South Park parodied this back in 2011

I Agreed by Accident

There is even an article about HumancentiPad

reading test?? what about an BAR test?

[Joe_Dragon]

reading test?? what about an BAR test?

As some of the stuff in the EULA you need to be an lawyer to under stand what they are talking about.

Re:reading test?? what about an BAR test?

[suutar]

I think the idea is that if your users have to understand the T&C to sign up, then you have to make your T&C understandable or you wind up with no signups. The problem of course is that if you control both the T&C and the test, then the test may not really be proof of understanding.

Re:reading test?? what about an BAR test?

[jythie]

This is why the 'just read it' rhetoric doesn't quite work. EULAs are written for a very specific audience with specialized knowledge. Even if a layman understands the sentences themselves, they are not generally going to be able to put them into the proper context of the rest of the legal framework. They half depend on people not reading them, and half depend on the professional arrogance of people reading them and believing that since they are smart computery type people working in the one and only field that requires specialized knowledge, so they understand legal documents just as well as people who actually have that domain knowledge.

Paypal banned me for life

[cliffjumper222]

I'm banned for life by Paypal. About a year ago they suspended my account, held onto all funds for 6 months and told me they'll never accept me as a customer ever again (they track SSN and CC numbers). I've no idea why because the customer support rep never said anything except that I should take my business elsewhere. I can only guess that they rate users / merchants by risk and are heavily culling any that blip above their line (which is pretty low). I sold software through a web site for $3.99 a pop and had a few customers claim their money back via Paypal (maybe 4 out of hundreds). Only one was ever valid, but there was absolutely no way to dispute a dispute with Paypal, so I just returned the money via the button they provided on the website. Now, Paypal can do what they like because they are a business, but I recommend no one ever use them for anything ever. If you are using them, go elsewhere and never rely on them to have your back.

Re:Paypal banned me for life

[nehumanuscrede]

Don't feel bad, PayPal did the same thing to me, albeit for different reasons.

Way back in the beginning, PayPal allowed you to create an account using nothing more than a Credit Card. So, I created an account. I never kept more than ~$50 or so in it as it was just for misc purchases I would make.

One day, I get an email from PayPal informing me that evil Russian hackers had attempted to log into my account and, for my protection of course, they limited access. Fine. So I called them up and told them that since I rarely used the account, to just close it out and send me whatever funds were left within it.

Were it so easy :|

"Oh no", they said, "we can't allow you to close out the account until you provide us with the following information: "

1) Phone number
2) Bank account number to my checking account

I argued that if " evil Russian Hackers " were trying to get into my account, why on Earth would I want to link this new information to it ? Just shut it down, close it out and be done with it.

They told me no.

So, I changed my password to some ungodly long phrase and let the account sit there, unused, for years.

PayPal sent me hate mail ( which I ignored ) from time to time informing me that if I didn't comply with their demands that they would close the account out. ( Which is what I wanted in the first place )

After a few years of this, they eventually did close it out and blacklisted me from using their services. ( Not that I lose a lot of sleep over that mind you. If a website only uses PayPal as their payment processor, I go find the item I want elsewhere. Simple as that. If it doesn't exist elsewhere, I just don't buy it. )

So, the way I see it is this:

Until PayPal gets regulated like the banking entity it's pretending to be, I wouldn't trust them for anything because they have shown time and time again that they are about as shady as they come.

Re:Paypal banned me for life

[AmiMoJo]

Same thing happened to me. Can't close the account unless i supply information I'm not willing to give them.

When they updated their terms and conditions it said if you don't accept them close your account. Obviously I can't, but I also don't agree to the new terms... Their support rep was useless.

So now they have my data illegally. Next month when the GDPR comes in I'm demanding they delete it, and when they refuse I'll claim some compensation.

Re:Slimy

[ShanghaiBill]

Are you too afraid to say you hate Elon Musk?

I thought he was talking about Peter Thiel.

Re:No one reads

[Cro Magnon]

It would help if their Terms And Conditions was somewhat shorter than the GoT novels.

Re:If only

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Yeah, I tried to say "fuck your paperwork, but I'd like to use your car without it" to the rental car company, and they refused too!

Can't be done

[Solandri]

"the requirement for clear and plain language"

That's just the problem. Those two requirements are mutually exclusive. You can have language that's clear (i.e. explains exactly and precisely what you're consenting to), or you can have language that's plain (simple to read and understand). Except for a few broad, general cases, you can't have both.

e.g. Consider the EULA terms for a photo sharing service. Your photos are protected by your copyright, but the service needs to be able to keep a copy.

"User (copyright holder) grants Service a license to keep a copy of copyrighted photos."

But wait, it's not enough just to keep a copy of the photo. For the photo to be shared, another copy needs to be produced on the visitor's computer.

"User (copyright holder) grants Service a license to keep a copy of copyrighted photos, and to make and distribute additional copies for the purposes of providing the service."

But wait, the service right now is a photo sharing service. What if they decide to change in the future into something more? So you can't just call it 'service', you have to define exactly what that service is.

"User (copyright holder) grants Service a license to keep a copy of copyrighted photos, and to make and distribute additional copies for the purposes of providing the service of distributing photos to other users whom User has given permission to view."

But wait, what if one of those other users decides to keep a copy of said photo? The service doesn't want to be sued for such actions since that's out of its control.

"User (copyright holder) grants Service a license to keep a copy of copyrighted photos, and to make and distribute additional copies for the purposes of providing the service of distributing photos to other users whom User has given permission to view. User understands that copies made to provide the service will be on devices outside of Service's control, and Service cannot guarantee such copies will not be retained or further distributed against User's wishes. User indemnifies Service against responsibility for copyright violations by other users, and will not sue Service for the actions of other users."

But wait, what if some of those users are employed by the service? That creates a loophole where the service could hire third parties to sell and distribute unauthorized copies, free from fear of being sued for copyright infringement.

"User (copyright holder) grants Service a license to keep a copy of copyrighted photos, and to make and distribute additional copies for the purposes of providing the service of distributing photos to other users whom User has given permission to view. User understands that copies made to provide the service will be on devices outside of Service's control, and Service cannot guarantee such copies will not be retained or further distributed against User's wishes. User indemnifies Service against responsibility for copyright violations by other users, and will not sue Service for the actions of other users, except in the case of users who are employees or agents of Service."

But wait, the service needs to keep backups of these photos in case they suffer a storage device failure. Such backups are prudent but not necessary to provide the service. And the clause you've just added makes the admin making the backups liable for copyright violation.

"User (copyright holder) grants Service a license to keep a copy of copyrighted photos, and to make and distribute additional copies for the purposes of providing the service of distributing photos to other users whom User has given permission to view. User understands that copies made to provide the service will be on devices outside of Service's control, and Service cannot guarantee such copies wil

Re:A crude measure

[sjames]

That's the claim, but it's bunk. A contract is supposed to represent a meeting of minds, an agreement between two entities. If one of those minds can't even understand it, there is no meeting of minds. A sane court system would void any such thing on sight. Especially the ones so bad even lawyers are befuddled when reading them.

As for ambiguity, I have NEVER heard a lawyer state anything in absolute terms when it comes to contracts. It's always probably this and most likely that.